Here Are 5 Key Takeaways From the US Supreme Court Ruling on Trump’s Ballot Ban

Here's What It Means Now That the Supreme Court Refused to Ban Donald Trump From ballots

The US Supreme Court decided on March 3 that former president Donald Trump could not be prevented from running for office in Colorado, per The AP. This decision put an end to a string of legal challenges that the Republican front-runner faced in many states as he pursued reelection that invoked the third clause of the 14th Amendment, passed during the American Civil War, which aims to exclude former elected officials who participated in an insurrection from ever holding public office again. Though it hasn't been used much since, advocacy organizations and voters have brought it back to life, arguing that Trump is not entitled to be on a ballot due to his alleged participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection amid efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, per The Guardian. This decision has multiple takeaways, and here are 5 of those.

1. No Decision on Whether Trump Engaged in Insurrection

Whether or not Trump participated in a rebellion is utterly unclear from the court's rulings. To have prevented the former President from being on the ballot, it would have been necessary to determine that Trump had personally participated in the insurrection. A person may not be eligible to hold office again if they have 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion,' according to the third clause. However, Trump and his supporters refuted this assertion, arguing that his post-election behavior did not amount to an insurrection. Instead, he said that January 6 was more like a 'riot' and that his remarks to his supporters—which some have claimed were inciting—were protected by the First Amendment. The state Supreme Court in Colorado concluded that he encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of rebellion, which qualified as insurrection. At the same time, it is worth noting that the legal lawsuits against him for electoral subversion will continue uninterrupted.

2. Tension Among the Justices on How Far the Ruling Goes

The justices' unanimous conclusion that the Colorado court could not remove Trump was shattered by two addendums that sought to expand the scope of the case. The way in which the insurrectionist clause would need to be applied was laid forth by the conservative justices who made up the majority of the court: John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. They wrote that an act of Congress would be needed to establish who would be disqualified from holding office due to rebellion, citing another provision of the 14th Amendment to illustrate their point. The conservative Amy Coney Barrett and liberal justices all felt that the majority went too far in dictating the type of process that would be required. They expressed their opinions separately. The case did not require the justices to “address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced," Barrett wrote. The liberal justices took this disagreement a step further, claiming that the majority judgment went into constitutional issues that it did not need to in order to 'insulate this court and petitioner from future controversy.'

3. State vs. Federal Issue at the Ruling's Heart

The decision's central theme is the balance between state and federal rights. Although states oversee federal elections, the court ruled that states lack the jurisdiction to withdraw a candidate from the race under Section 3. Instead, the majority ruling stated that the 14th Amendment 'expanded federal power at the expense of state autonomy.' Allowing states to act as Colorado did would "invert the Fourteenth Amendment's rebalancing of federal and state power." According to the majority, the clause's text does not specify how a state can enforce it. They believe that only Congress has been cited as an enforcer. They also wrote that states may—and did—utilize the provision to exclude state candidates from office if they violated the insurrectionist clause. This federalism argument was undoubtedly supported by all nine judges; however, the majority of the decision goes on to describe how Congress may implement the provision in the future. Justices Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all submitted separate opinions, arguing that the majority conclusion went too far. The liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson) said that the finding that states lack jurisdiction in this case 'provides a secure and sufficient basis to resolve this case.' They wrote, “The Court should have started and ended its opinion with this conclusion.”

4. This Case Had a High Potential for Mayhem or Violence

The 2024 election has already been tense due to Trump's candidacy; his capacity to influence his fans is unsurpassed in recent American politics. Moreover, the lawsuits filed against Trump in multiple states—for election subversion, hush money accusations, hoarding classified papers, and business fraud —appear to have strengthened or even increased his supporters' loyalty. The 14th Amendment cases joined this complex dynamic, dropping yet another legal bomb, although an obscure one, that fueled Trump's supporters' perception that there was a plot against his right to seek re-election. Trump has benefited from these legal problems while on the campaign trail, saying they are proof of election meddling and that it is President Joe Biden, not him, who is endangering democracy. The extreme partisan divide on the 14th Amendment held the potential to further encourage political violence regardless of the court's decision, according to a January survey on the subject conducted by the University of Chicago's Chicago Project on Security & Threats, as per another report from The Guardian.

5. The Case Took Politics into Consideration

Although the judiciary frequently asserts that it stays out of political matters, the court's decision in this particular instance was obviously influenced by politics. All of the perspectives consider the potential political ramifications of Trump's removal. The majority stated in their judgment that voters would be disturbed by the possibility that a candidate may be disqualified in some states, creating a 'patchwork' effect. “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times,” they wrote. “The disruption would be all the more acute – and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result – if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos – arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.” The political dynamics within the judges were evident as well, in addition to the politics surrounding the election itself and the general public. The liberal judges took a shot at the majority, claiming the judgment 'insulates all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.'