In a ruling that could have saved everyone months of breathless cable news speculation and late-night think pieces, the Supreme Court has decided that individual states cannot take it upon themselves to boot Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, even if some find his post-election enthusiasm for creative constitutional interpretation a bit strong.
The nation’s highest court issued a unanimous ruling in Trump v. Anderson, the Colorado case that sought to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which famously bars those who have “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Suffice it to say, Section 3 has suddenly become quite the popular reading assignment for legal scholars who enjoy dusty corners of the Constitution getting their moment in the sun.
Colorado’s Supreme Court had caused quite the stir in December by ruling that Trump’s attempts to block the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election rose to the level of insurrection. It was a bold move, akin to trying to referee a food fight with a copy of the Federalist Papers.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, took a less action-packed view. In a relatively short 13-page opinion, the Court diplomatically hinted that while yes, we understand your concerns, no, you cannot unilaterally prevent a major party candidate from running for president just because things got a little rowdy in January 2021. The decision reads like the judicial equivalent of telling the states, “Nice try, but no.”
Chief Justice John Roberts presumably held the gavel with both hands while the Court not-so-subtly reminded everyone that disqualifying a candidate must be a federal affair and, more importantly, one undertaken by Congress, not a patchwork of enterprising state courts and election boards armed with pocket Constitutions and a sense of destiny.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a separate opinion, encouraged everyone to calm down and stop trying to turn the judiciary into the star of a constitutional drama already verging on a telenovela. She warned that “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.” Which is a legal way of saying that shouting louder in all caps does not make your argument better.
“The Court holds that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices,” the ruling reads, gently lowering the hammer.
While the opinion does not go so far as to say Trump definitely did not engage in insurrection, it also deftly sidesteps declaring that he did, which is the judicial equivalent of nodding politely and leaving the party before things get awkward.
This ruling effectively keeps Trump on the ballot in all 50 states and puts the kibosh on other states who were toying with the idea of booting him from theirs, presumably during their next brunch meeting of “Secretaries of State for Democracy Preservation.”
So Trump remains on the ballot, the legal scholars continue sharpening their quills, and the rest of us carry on hurtling toward November like riders in a constitutional roller coaster operated by mimes with law degrees.
Democracy staggers on, just slightly more organized than a group chat planning brunch.