In a contentious ruling today, the United States Supreme Court overturned the decision of Colorado’s top court, which had upheld Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s removal of disgraced former President Donald Trump from the ballot.
The decision ignited a storm of reactions from legal experts, activists, and politicians across the nation, and two other states denied the 2020 election loser ballot access due to his failed coup attempt.
The case centered around Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding office.
Despite widespread acknowledgment of Trump’s role in inciting the violent insurrection on January 6, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot disqualify candidates for federal office under this provision.
Meanwhile, American Values 2024 has announced plans to spend at least $15 million to help independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. get on the ballot, hiring at least three canvassing firms to gather signatures on his behalf in multiple states but the powerhouse Democratic election law firm Elias Law Group, representing centrist think tank Third Way, is warning officials in several states not to accept signatures gathered by the super PAC.
The Democratic National Committee filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against independent Kennedy’s presidential campaign and an allied super PAC, alleging that the campaign is receiving an improper benefit from the super PAC’s work to qualify him for state ballots.
Kennedy abandoned his pursuit of the Democratic Party nomination after running into cheating by partisans loyal to President Joe Biden, who is almost certain to lose if he is in a rematch with Trump, according to polls and pundits.
Legal experts representing various perspectives have offered divergent views on the Supreme Court ruling.
Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech For People, expressed deep disappointment, stating that the decision “makes a mockery” of the Constitution’s intent to prevent individuals who have undermined democracy from holding office.
Fein emphasized the overwhelming evidence of Trump’s involvement in the insurrection and criticized the court for failing to uphold the constitutional mandate.
However, others view the ruling as a necessary safeguard of constitutional principles.
George T. Pallas, an attorney from Miami, echoed Justice Barrett’s concurring opinion, emphasizing that all nine justices agreed on the outcome of the case.
Pallas suggested that the ruling sends a clear message about the importance of adhering to established legal principles.
Similarly, Trey Mayfield, in a brief statement, commended the Supreme Court for its diligence in addressing a complex constitutional question and praised the unanimous judgment as an appropriate response to partisan attempts to subvert the rule of law.
In contrast, attorney John Vail expressed concern over what he sees as a broader trend of limiting the force of the Fourteenth Amendment, suggesting that such actions perpetuate a “Confederate mindset” that undermines the Constitution’s integrity.
“The Supreme Court continued a 150 year trend of limiting the force of the 14th Amendment, a trend that has allowed the Confederate mindset to flourish,” said Vail.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), welcomed the decision, asserting that if states have power to disqualify candidates for federal office, it would invite “chaos.”
“Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Secretary of State could not remove Donald Trump from the ballot,” said PILF President J. Christian Adams. “The Court ruled that the Colorado Supreme Court misapplied the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The right to vote for a candidate of choice was at stake. When a state official removes a candidate from the ballot like this, it is destabilizing.”
PILF had filed an amici curiae brief urging the Court to reverse Colorado’s action, arguing that states lack the authority to disqualify federal candidates.
However, not all legal experts share this perspective.
David M. Driesen, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, sharply criticized the ruling, alleging that it grants Trump and other insurrectionists amnesty and undermines democracy’s survival.
“The court aids Trump’s drive for autocracy by nullifying a constitutional provision intended to protect the Constitution from assault,” said Driesen. “It grants Trump and other federal insurrectionists an amnesty, even though the Constitution only authorizes Congress to do that with a 2/3 vote. The history of the world demonstrates that democracies cannot survive (the) election of officials who lead an insurrection, as President Trump did.”
Critics noted that the Supreme Court did not deny that Trump engaged in insurrection.
During a nearly three-hour oral argument on February 8, 2024, neither Trump’s lawyer nor any of the justices seriously disputed that conclusion. Instead, the court ruled that states’ power to appoint presidential electors–which it has previously described as “far-reaching” and “plenary”–does not allow them to apply this critical provision of the Constitution to presidential candidates.
As of today, states can exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot because he did not submit the proper paperwork with the proper number of verified signatures, but not because he fomented a bloody insurrection against the U.S. Constitution.
“This decision is disgraceful,” said Fein. “The Supreme Court couldn’t exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution’s built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don’t matter.”
This dangerous ruling encourages Trump–and those who follow his example–to engage in more insurrections and disregard more broadly the Constitution.
As one senator explained in 1866 when advocating for Section 3, “the man who has once violated his oath will be more liable to violate his fealty to the Government in the future.”
“The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the lesson learned through bloody and painful experience, and they provided us with a way to prevent its recurrence,” said Lisa McCormick, a New Jersey Democrat who challenged Senator Bob Menendez in the 2018 Democratic primary election. “With today’s ruling, the Supreme Court has utterly failed in its duty to its obligation to uphold this constitutional imperative during this pivotal juncture in our history.”
The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment learned this lesson in gave us Section 3 to prevent a repeat. uphold this constitutional mandate at this critical moment in history.