Supreme Court Ruling on Trump’s Ballot Eligibility Leaves Unanswered Questions
Former President Donald Trump’s eligibility for a second term on the ballot has been decisively resolved by the Supreme Court. However, while the ruling settled this issue, it left several unanswered questions that could have implications in the future. The court’s opinion, though unanimous, did not provide clear guidance on certain matters, which may lead to further disputes in the future.
The Supreme Court’s ruling stated that states cannot disqualify presidential candidates based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban. However, the justices did not delve into every aspect of the case, leaving room for uncertainty. For example, the court did not address what constitutes an “insurrection” or how to determine if a candidate took part in one. This lack of clarity could be significant for future disputes involving “insurrectionists” running for state office.
According to Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, the definition of insurrection and the due process guarantees required are issues that may need to be dealt with in the future. Currently, there is a pending appeal at the Supreme Court involving a former New Mexico county commissioner who was removed from office due to his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The court’s inaction on this appeal may be due to its focus on resolving Trump’s case first.
Another unanswered question is whether a future constitutional crisis can be avoided. Some legal scholars have expressed concerns that if Congress is not explicitly involved in disqualifying a candidate for insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it could lead to a catastrophic constitutional crisis. If Trump were to win the election, Democrats might attempt to disqualify him before the electoral votes are counted in January 2025. Political pressure to do so would likely increase if Trump is convicted in any of the four criminal cases pending against him. The Supreme Court’s opinion may have headed off this possibility by requiring Congress to enact enforcement legislation, but this requirement may be unattainable given the current political divisions on Capitol Hill.
The ruling also did not provide clarity on other qualifications for candidacy. It was unclear whether states can remove a clearly ineligible candidate from the ballot before an election or if the Constitution’s eligibility rules only govern whether a candidate may serve in office. For example, could a state remove a 25-year-old candidate from the ballot when the Constitution requires a president to be at least 35 years old? The court did not address these questions in its opinion.
Overall, while the Supreme Court’s ruling settled the issue of Trump’s eligibility for a second term, it left several unanswered questions that could have implications in future elections. The lack of clarity on certain matters may lead to further disputes and potentially even constitutional crises. It remains to be seen how these issues will be resolved in the future.
