What did the Supreme Court decide in Trump v. Anderson?

In a per curiam decision on March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, holding that individual states lack constitutional authority under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce candidate disqualification against federal officeholders and presidential candidates without congressional legislation.

Why is the ruling characterized as sidestepping accountability for January 6?

The Court resolved the case on procedural and federalism grounds rather than evaluating whether Donald Trump's conduct surrounding the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What was former Federal Judge J. Michael Luttig's legal argument regarding Section 3?

Judge Luttig argued that the armed attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on January 6 was an insurrection against the Constitution. Relying on the Electors Clause and precedent such as Hassan v. Colorado, Luttig contended that states hold constitutional authority to exclude candidates who are legally disqualified from assuming federal office.

How did Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson respond to the majority ruling?

While concurring in the judgment that Colorado could not unilaterally remove a presidential candidate from the ballot, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson issued a separate opinion criticizing the conservative majority for reaching beyond the core dispute to decide how federal Section 3 disqualifications must operate in future cases.

Supreme Court’s Decision In Trump v. Anderson

A Missed Opportunity for Accountability (or) What Insurrect

Today, the Supreme Court issued in Trump v. Anderson is a shameful ruling, as I previously feared they might. In a decision that will be remembered for its evasion rather than its jurisprudence, the Supreme Court sidestepped the grave question of Donald Trump’s actions leading up to and on January 6, 2021. The phrase “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” springs to mind, but after listening to the oral arguments, last month, and looking over this ruling now, it seems the Court was more concerned with arguing about the proper arrangement of the chairs than facing the unfolding disaster.

The fact that a President summoned a mob to attack another branch of government, resulting in deaths at the U.S. Capitol just across the street from where the Justices sit, seemed lost on them. Like much of the nation, the Court has chosen to ignore behavior that, in 236 years under the Constitution, was not only unprecedented, but unthinkable, until now (on a sad note of irony, today, March 4, 2024 marks exactly 236 years since the Constitution went into effect).

The Supreme Court’s Trimp v. Anderson Decision

The ruling reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to exclude Trump from the Republican primary ballot, citing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution assigns Congress, not the States, the responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.

The decision, delivered per curiam (Latin “for the court”), means that no individual justice took credit for writing it, and it indicates a unified front by the Court, though Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson (those appointed by Democrat Presidents) felt compelled to provide their reasoning separately. They emphasized judicial restraint, suggesting a cautious approach to decision-making that, to some of us, sounds more like cowardice.

It’s Not Just Me Who Thinks This

I did not arrive at my conclusions alone. I had hoped the Court would heed the compelling arguments presented by legal experts and historians, who overwhelmingly believed Colorado officials were correct. In particular, a brief by former Federal Judge Michael Luttig, a respected conservative figure, which went into great detail on the matter and bluntly stated, “The January 6, 2021 Armed Attempt To Prevent The Peaceful Transfer Of Executive Power Was An Insurrection… Against The Constitution,” and further warned: “Section 3 must be accorded its fair meaning, not a narrow construction.” All to no avail.

Luttig grounded his analysis of Trump v. Anderson in the Electors Clause, asserting states’ authority to exclude from the ballot candidates constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. He also cited case law, Hassan v. Colorado, where it was noted that a state’s interest permits it to exclude candidates from the ballot who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. Despite today’s ruling, which does not mention Hassan v. Colorado and maintains that states lack authority under the Electors Clause to enforce Section 3, Luttig’s points, and the points raised by so many others, remain salient.

While we must accept today’s decision, because the rule of law is a core principle of republican government, this is not the end. Other states should continue efforts to challenge Trump’s eligibility, asserting their disagreement with today’s ruling and advocating for their role, their duty, to manage elections. It’s a long shot, I know, but it’s a fight for the integrity of our electoral process and a protest that would not go unnoticed.

If you agree, I urge you to engage in this battle for our democratic way of life. Contact public officials, support organizations fighting for electoral integrity, and stay informed. Today’s decision is a setback, but it’s not the final word.