Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Rules a State May Not Disqualify Trump From Presidential Primary Ballot

On March 4, 2024, a day before the fifteen-state Presidential run known as Super Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Trump v. Anderson that a state may not disqualify former President Donald Trump from the presidential primary ballot, reversing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove him from the ballot. The decision settles the legal challenges regarding Trump’s eligibility to run for president in California, Illinois, Maine, New York, and Wisconsin.

As summarized in Dykema’s February 2024 edition, the dispute arose when Colorado voters sued to keep Trump off the ballot due to his alleged role in the January 6th events at the Capitol. The central issue of the case is the interpretation of Section 3 of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. Enacted after the Civil War to target former officials who had supported the Confederacy, this Section disqualifies individuals who have been federal or state government officials and sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution from taking any office “under the United States” if they have “engaged in insurrection.”

In an unsigned opinion, the Court unanimously held that the Constitution authorizes Congress, not the states, to enforce Section 3 against officeholders and candidates for federal office. According to the Court, allowing individual states to determine a federal candidate’s eligibility could lead to a patchwork of conflicting outcomes not only based on differing views of candidates’ qualifications but also on procedural variations in state law governing the proceedings, disrupting the federal election process in a manner the Constitution neither requires nor tolerates. The five member majority of the Court went a step further and held that Congress’ ability to enforce Section 3 and to determine the eligibility or disqualification of a candidate for federal office require Congress to first exercise its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact “appropriate legislation” to enforce the Amendment.

Although all nine members of the Court joined in the judgement reversing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, consistent with the positions they appeared to stake during oral argument, four Justices wrote separately to register disagreement with the majority’s decision to reach the question of how Congress may enforce Section 3. Justice Barrett wrote that the majority should not have reached “the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” At the same time, she admonished her concurring colleagues against ratcheting up the volume on a “politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election,” writing that “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency” because it threatens to overshadow the 9-0 decision amid an election season. Concurring in the judgment, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson criticized the majority for going beyond the issue necessary to decide the case to reach “how Section 3 can bar an oath breaking insurrectionist from becoming President.” 

The Court’s unanimous judgment ensures that Trump will remain on the ballot as the Republican presidential nominee in all 50 states, effectively ending the constitutional attack on his eligibility.For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, McKenna Crisp, Monika Harris, or Puja Valera.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, McKenna Crisp, Monika Harris, or Puja Valera.