Trump v. Anderson
Headline: State may not use Civil War-era ban to keep a presidential candidate off the ballot; Court unanimously reversed Colorado’s order, holding Congress, not states, must enforce Fourteenth Amendment disqualifications.
Holding:
- Prevents states from removing federal candidates from federal ballots using Section 3.
- Leaves Congress as the body that can disqualify or restore federal candidates.
- Reverses Colorado order and keeps former President Trump on the 2024 primary ballot for now.
Summary
Background
A group of six Colorado voters sued former President Donald J. Trump and the Colorado secretary of state, claiming Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment bars him from holding federal office because he allegedly helped incite the January 6, 2021 Capitol breach. The Colorado trial court found he had “engaged in insurrection” but declined to remove him from the ballot, concluding the Presidency was not an “office under the United States.” The Colorado Supreme Court reversed and ordered the secretary of state to exclude him from the 2024 primary ballot and ignore write-in votes.
Reasoning
The central question was whether a State can enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. The Court held the Constitution assigns enforcement to Congress, not individual States. It explained that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 5 gives Congress power to enforce the Amendment, that historical practice and post‑Civil War laws show Congress has enforced disqualifications, and that allowing States to bar federal candidates would create conflicting state-by-state results and undermine national elections. The Court distinguished state power to disqualify state officers from any authority to disqualify federal officers or candidates and reversed the Colorado decision.
Real world impact
Because only Congress can enforce Section 3 against federal officers or candidates, state election officials may not use Section 3 to remove a Presidential candidate from a federal ballot. The ruling vacates Colorado’s order to exclude former President Trump from the 2024 primary ballot while leaving open Congress’s power to act. The decision addresses who enforces the rule, not finally whether any particular person violated Section 3’s substantive ban on insurrection.
Dissents or concurrances
All nine Justices agreed on the outcome, but several wrote separately. One Justice would have limited the holding to Presidential candidates and stopped there. Three Justices concurred in the judgment only, arguing the case could have been decided more narrowly and warning the Court should not decide how Congress must enforce Section 3 in future cases.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?