After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, most observers agreed that the justices would not conclude that Donald Trump is ineligible for the 2024 ballot. The question, however, was how, exactly, the high court would let the former president off the hook.
The question now has an answer. NBC News reported this morning:
The court in an unsigned ruling with no dissents reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the ruling read.
The former president responded to the outcome on his social media platform, writing, “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!”
As is usually the case with the Republican, it’s not the country that’s the big winner here. Indeed, it’s worth clarifying that on the question of Trump’s eligibility, the ruling was unanimous: All nine justices agreed that officials in Colorado do not have the authority to kick the Republican off the ballot. But there were some divisions on the court.
The three remaining center-left justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed with the top-line result, but wrote in a concurring opinion that the majority went further than it needed to when it said only an act of Congress can enforce the relevant constitutional provision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump-appointed conservative, also agreed that the court went further than required.
For those who might benefit from a refresher, about a month after the Jan. 6 attack, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, reminded the political world that if Trump ran for a second term, the Republican might run into eligibility problems. After all, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars any public official who swore an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
The Maryland Democrat explained at the time, “Donald Trump is right in, you know, the bullseye middle of that group,” referencing how the lawmakers at the end of the Civil War intended for it to be used. “And so, he really does fulfill exactly the constitutional prohibition there.”
Raskin wasn’t alone in thinking along these lines. A majority on the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that because of Trump’s post-defeat efforts, and his role in attacking his own country’s democracy, the Republican was ineligible. Officials in Maine and Illinois came to the same conclusion.
The Supreme Court has now undone those findings. The justices didn’t say that Trump is innocent; rather, a majority of the court concluded that it’s up to Congress, not the states, to make eligibility determinations under the 14th Amendment.
My MSNBC colleague Jordan Rubin added, “The decision comes a day ahead of Super Tuesday, when several states are holding their primary contests, including Colorado.”
It also comes just days after the Supreme Court did Trump a critically important favor by keeping alive the former president’s absurd “immunity” claims, helping the Republican delay accountability over his alleged felonies.
