DENVER — Former President Donald Trump won a clear victory Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that states do not have the ability to bar him — or other federal candidates — from the ballot under a rarely used constitutional provision that prohibits that. who were “involved in the uprising” from their positions.
The decision ends an effort in dozens of states to end Trump’s candidacy through a clause in the 14th Amendment written to prevent former Confederates from serving in government after the Civil War.
But it could open the door to further electoral uncertainty, exposing more state officials to disqualification under the provision and setting off a constitutional showdown if Trump wins the election.
Facing four separate criminal trials, Trump’s legal peril may be just beginning. This also applies to the role of the Supreme Court in that process.
Here are some takeaways:
The most significant thing the court did Monday was to overturn a December Colorado Supreme Court ruling that found Trump ineligible to become president because he had violated the Insurrection Clause, Section 3, of the 14th Amendment .
This will also put an end to efforts to kick him off the ballot in Illinois, Maine and other states. If the Supreme Court had upheld the Colorado ruling, it could have led to a new wave of lawsuits, potentially disqualifying Trump in many states.
The Supreme Court avoided delving into the politically contentious issue of whether Trump played a role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which could prevent him from returning to office. The statement contains virtually no references to January 6 or the insurrection, and does not address whether Trump committed such an act in provoking the attack on the Capitol.
Instead, it focuses on the technical, procedural question of who gets to decide an election challenge under Section 3.
All nine justices agreed that this is Congress’s authority. But a smaller majority of five went further and ruled that this is only possible through legislation. That exposes significant divisions among the unanimous majority, and highlights the greatest uncertainty the ruling creates.
One possible outcome of the case was the prospect that unelected judges will disqualify the dominant man, who has already received hundreds of thousands of votes in the nomination process.
But another potential nightmare is that if Congress is the only entity that can determine whether a presidential candidate is indeed disqualified from participating in “insurrection,” it will make that decision on January 6, 2025, when it is necessary to ensure a possible victory of Trump in the election. the presidential elections.
The Supreme Court closed the first possibility, but may have left the door open to the second. The five-justice majority — all from the Court’s conservative wing — said Congress can implement Section 3 through legislation, “subject, of course, to judicial review.” (That means the court reserves the right to have the final say.)
That sparked disagreement among the Court’s three liberals, who complained that this “closes the door to other possible means of federal enforcement.”
That appears to imply a rejection of Trump’s voters if he wins the election — but several legal experts said Monday it wasn’t so clear, and the only way to find out may be for Congress to try.
The 14th Amendment case is one of two cases that put the Supreme Court in the middle of the ongoing presidential election. Last week, the court agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of a federal ruling that he is not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump’s trial on these charges was originally scheduled to begin Monday, but has been postponed due to the battle over his immunity issue. The Supreme Court, which will hear his appeal at the end of April, points to the possibility that the trial will not be completed until after the presidential election.
The justices’ discomfort at being placed in the middle of the nation’s partisan divide was reflected in a brief but notable concurring opinion from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Although she was one of the Court’s conservatives, she disagreed with the majority’s ruling that Congress can only enforce Section 3 through legislation. But she also did not want to join the dissent of the Liberals, but warned against focusing too much on party political divisions.
“…this is not the time to heighten disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has resolved a politically charged issue in the volatile presidential election season. Particularly in these circumstances, writings about the Court should change national opinion. temperature down, not up.”
“For present purposes, our disagreements are far less important than our unanimity: all nine judges agree on the outcome of this case,” she concluded. “That’s the message Americans need to take home.”
The court’s ruling rules out the use of Section 3 against federal officials in the absence of congressional action, but leaves open the option for states to use the provision against their own state officials, noting that after the Civil War there was a wealthy track record with precisely those types of actions.
This has already started again in the period after January. 6 era. The first disqualification under Section 3 in more than a century came in 2022, when a New Mexico court convicted Couy Griffin, who was convicted on January 6 of entering the Capitol grounds while leading a group called Cowboys for Trump. ‘, removed from his rural environment. provincial commission.
The group that brought that case, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, then filed the Colorado case against Trump. They said they would like to continue filing Section 3 cases against lower-level participants.
Few observers expected the Supreme Court to keep Trump off the ballot. But he faces a much more dangerous legal path.
The first criminal trial against Trump, for allegedly falsifying business records to pay hush money to an adult film actress during the 2016 presidential campaign, will begin later this month in New York. The former president is also appealing a New York judge’s ruling that he must pay $355 million for fraud committed by his companies, and ruling that he must pay a writer $83 million for defaming her after she accused him charged with assault.
Depending on how and how quickly the Supreme Court rules on Trump’s immunity claim, he could still be charged for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election in Washington DC before the November election.
It is more likely that two more cases will follow later – in Atlanta, where Trump faces charges over his 2020 election scheme, and in Florida, where he is tentatively set for a May trial on charges of improperly retaining classified documents after he has left the presidency, but the trial date is expected to be postponed.
Monday was a victory Trump needed to continue his campaign, but his days in court are far from over.