Supreme Court Skeptical of Colorado’s Exclusion of Trump from Primary Ballot
The Supreme Court of the United States has expressed skepticism over Colorado’s ability to exclude former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot. Justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum voiced concerns about the consequences of ruling Trump ineligible for the White House. The case, known as Trump v. Anderson, centers around whether Trump’s conduct during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualifies him from holding the presidency in the future. This case enters new legal territory and could have far-reaching implications for the 2024 presidential race.
The dispute revolves around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits officials who engage in insurrection from serving in government. The provision, enacted in 1868 to prevent former Confederates from holding office, has been largely dormant for over 150 years. A group of Colorado voters filed a lawsuit in the fall invoking Section 3, arguing that Trump instigated the January 6 attack to subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 election. In December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Trump is ineligible for public office and should be excluded from the state’s primary ballot. Trump’s attorneys appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, leading to the current oral arguments.
During oral arguments, which lasted two hours, the justices questioned whether states have the power to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility under Section 3 and exclude them from the ballot. Many expressed concerns about the nationwide implications of such a decision. Chief Justice John Roberts remarked that this argument contradicted the essence of the 14th Amendment and its historical context. He warned that if states were allowed to exclude candidates based on party affiliation, only a handful of states would ultimately decide the presidential election, which would have significant consequences.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the three justices appointed by Trump, highlighted the importance of considering democracy and the right of the people to elect their preferred candidate. He expressed concerns that excluding Trump would disenfranchise voters to a significant degree.
While the court seemed cautious about upholding the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, their stance on the matter remains unclear. It is possible that a majority of justices will agree that Trump is eligible for another term and that the Colorado ruling should be reversed. However, they may disagree on the reasoning behind this decision. Several justices questioned the scope of Section 3 and whether it applies to the former president and the presidency itself. Trump’s main argument is that the disqualification provision does not include the word “president” in its enumerated list of barred positions.
The justices spent little time debating whether Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6 and instead focused on enforcement issues and the provision’s scope. Trump’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, argued that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 unless granted by Congress. Mitchell cited an 1869 case involving Caesar Griffin, where Chief Justice Salmon Chase held that Section 3 was not self-executing and required congressional action for enforcement. Mitchell contended that states cannot declare a candidate ineligible for office when Congress has the power to lift the disqualification by a two-thirds vote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that Chase’s ruling did not establish precedent for the Supreme Court and mentioned that he contradicted his own ruling in the treason prosecution of Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy. Justice Elena Kagan asked Mitchell what his argument would be without the Griffin case, to which Mitchell replied that it would be a much harder argument to make since other provisions of the 14th Amendment have been treated as self-executing.
Mitchell also argued that Section 3 does not apply to denying Trump access to the ballot because it only prohibits a person from holding office, not from running as a candidate or winning an election. He emphasized that Congress has the power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists through a congressional waiver, rendering state declarations of ineligibility premature.
Jason Murray, the lead attorney for the Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility, urged the Supreme Court to uphold the Colorado ruling. He argued that Trump betrayed his oath to uphold the Constitution by inciting the Capitol attack to obstruct the counting of electoral votes against him.
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Murray for historical examples of states disqualifying national candidates from the ballot under Section 3. Murray could only cite one example from 1868 when the governor of Georgia refused to certify the results of a congressional election. Chief Justice Roberts indicated that Murray’s interpretation of states’ power to enforce Section 3 contradicted the rest of the 14th Amendment, which aimed to restrict state power.
Justice Kagan raised concerns about a single state making determinations about a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office under Section 3. She questioned why states should have this authority not only over their own citizens but also over the rest of the nation. Kagan emphasized the broader principle that certain national questions should not be left to the states in our federal system.
The outcome of Trump v. Anderson remains uncertain at this point. While the Supreme Court seemed hesitant to uphold the Colorado ruling, it is unclear on what grounds they would rule. The case has significant implications for future presidential races and could shape the interpretation and enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The final decision will have far-reaching consequences for American democracy and the limits of state power in determining presidential eligibility.
