Associated Press
The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 Presidential Primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former President accountable for the Capitol riot.
The Justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday Primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.
The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.
Colorado’s Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, had decided that the provision, Section 3, could be applied to Trump, who that court found incited the Capitol attack. No court before had applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.
Some election observers have warned that a ruling requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could leave the door open to a renewed fight over trying to use the provision to disqualify Trump in the event he wins the election. In one scenario, a Democratic-controlled Congress could try to reject certifying Trump’s election on Jan. 6, 2025, under the clause.
The issue then could return to the court, possibly in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.
Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8. The Justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump’s favor.
Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.
The case is the court’s most direct involvement in a Presidential Election since Bush v. Gore, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively handed the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. And it’s just one of several cases involving Trump directly or that could affect his chances of becoming President again, including a case scheduled for arguments in late April about whether he can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The timing of the high court’s intervention has raised questions about whether Trump will be tried before the November election.
The arguments in February were the first time the high court had heard a case involving Section 3. The two-sentence provision, intended to keep some Confederates from holding office again, says that those who violate oaths to support the Constitution are barred from various positions including congressional offices or serving as presidential electors. But it does not specifically mention the presidency.
Conservative and liberal Justices questioned the case against Trump. Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke the 14th Amendment. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.
The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump’s name from the Colorado ballot had argued that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that it was incited by Trump, who had exhorted a crowd of his supporters at a rally outside the White House to “fight like hell.” They said it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argued.
Trump’s lawyers mounted several arguments for why the amendment can’t be used to keep him off the ballot. They contended the Jan. 6 riot wasn’t an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not go to the Capitol or join the rioters. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for President, they said. Even if all those arguments failed, they said, Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.
The case was decided by a court that includes three Justices appointed by Trump when he was President. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.
The 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore case more than 23 years ago was the last time the court was so deeply involved in presidential politics. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who was on the bench then. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the Trump case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.
___
Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
16 comments
PeterH
March 4, 2024 at 11:18 am
SCOTUS is trying to avoid election chaos by not following the strict interpretation of the Constitution ….. AND allowing “the chaos candidate” to stay on the ballot!
Hung Wiil
March 5, 2024 at 8:04 pm
Your comments are inane. The amount of knowledge or understanding you have about the Constitution could fit on the head of a pin.
Dont Say FLA
March 4, 2024 at 12:07 pm
Unsurprising and, at this late date with him already being on the ballot, probably the right choice.
Had these states banned him in the days immediately following Official U.S. Capitol Tourism Day, January 6th, the outcome might have been different.
Next time somebody does some stuff like what Trump did, and it’ll probably be Trump again, states need to ban that person from the ballot BEFORE they are on the ballot.
The great news is that a SCOTUS precedent has been set ruling that states cannot ban candidates from the federal ballot.
This SCOTUS loves nothing more than to reverse precedent.
Thing i want to know is why Donald J Trump has yet to be declared an Enemy Combatant and locked away with Jose Padilla. Trump did WAY more to harm USA than did Jose Padilla who actually did nothing at all. Jose only allegedly made plans to do stuff. Trump made plans AND did them.
Earl Pitts "Sage Political Expert Emeritas" American
March 4, 2024 at 7:21 pm
Sage wisdom my Beloved Son/Daughter, your Pops Loves You!!
Joe
March 4, 2024 at 10:15 pm
This craven and corrupted SCOTUS is dying and trying to take us all down with it. Fight back America!
Michael K
March 5, 2024 at 10:31 am
I’ll still take 81 years over 91 felony indictments.
The immunity case should not be prolonged. Our democracy is dead if it decides that presidents are immune from prosecution. (That was decided with Nixon – presidents are NOT immune). But I guess Clarence will get a new RV and Alito will get expensive wine if they do what Leonard Leo tells them to do.
Hung Wiil
March 5, 2024 at 8:11 pm
See, Michael, you’re the problem, not the solution. An indictment is an allegation made by the government. Real Americans believe that a person is innocent until guilt has been proven. Due process of law is revered. In North Korea, the government is the judge, jury, and executioner. Obviously you worship at the altar of government.
Michael K
March 5, 2024 at 8:54 pm
What is it about ninety-one felonies that you do not understand? It’s a pattern of lawlessness – on top of the civil suits and the thousands of contractors he’s stiffed over the years and the bankruptcies, lies, and the small businesses he destroyed. He’s never been held accountable, and it’s finally catching up.
I can’t think of a single American president who has ever been twice impeached and faced so many felony counts, can you? It speaks to his lack of character. He learned from one of the most despicable humans in America, Roy Cohn.
Ninety-one indictments, by Grand Juries made up of American citizens like you and me. Not some fever-dream deep state.
Michael K
March 5, 2024 at 8:55 pm
And he lost the last election, by the way. Bigly.
Dancing Outlawed
March 5, 2024 at 1:24 pm
Okay so Trump is on the ballot.
What has he done to gain so much as one vote since he got spanked so hard in 2020? (and 2018 and 2022)?
He’ll get fewer votes this time than he got last time. All the man has done is alienate every voter outside of the MAGA cult.
Perhaps his plan is to be President of the New Confederacy. If true, that would explain his campaign strategy and tactics.
Assley Blabbit
March 5, 2024 at 1:26 pm
If I could, I would vote for Trump! He got me killed, so I can’t vote for him, but if I were still alive I would definitely vote Trump in 2024.
rick whitaker
March 5, 2024 at 5:09 pm
assley, a whole lot of people were killed by trump, none of those poor florida republicans in those nursing homes that died needlessly because of trump’s ignorance, will be able to vote.
Jose
March 5, 2024 at 7:51 pm
Trump landslides coming lol
Andrew Finn
March 6, 2024 at 7:25 pm
Meanwhile, in Colorado, Jena Griswold is still sleeping after being up all night on Tuesday helping them count up all those Trump votes !!!! Nyuk – Nyuk – Nyuk !!!!!!!!!!!!
Absolute Immunity
March 8, 2024 at 10:10 am
Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.
But if Presidents have “absolute immunity” and Biden has the Senate, meaning he can get new SCOTUS picks voted on and approved, can’t Biden put an end to each justice’s appointment that he wishes to end? Given absolute immunity, he absolutely can!
Promises Promises
March 9, 2024 at 9:42 am
Build that wall but make Mexico pay for it. FAIL
Lock her up. FAIL.
Prosecute Joe Biden on Day One. FAIL. 100% Predictably: Trump says Presidents have absolute immunity, so how will anybody prosecute Joe Biden on Day One of another Trump term?
Trump promises and promises, but it’s all lies. His lies don’t hold with reality. His lies can’t even stand relative to his other lies.
Absolutely Immune Biden should set Trump’s pants on fire.
Comments are closed.