Trump v. Anderson
Headline: Colorado voters cannot force removal of a presidential candidate under Section 3; Court reversed the state ruling and held that States may not enforce that disqualification against federal candidates, leaving enforcement to Congress.
Holding: The Court held that States lack constitutional authority to enforce Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 against federal officers or candidates, so Colorado may not remove the former President from its presidential primary ballot and must allow his candidacy.
- Prevents Colorado from excluding the former President from its primary ballot under Section 3.
- Stops individual States from disqualifying federal candidates under Section 3.
- Leaves removal of Section 3 disabilities to Congress rather than state officials.
Summary
Background
A group of Colorado voters sued to keep the former President off Colorado’s 2024 Republican primary ballot. They argued that after taking the Presidential oath he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, and so is disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A Colorado trial court found he “engaged in insurrection” but denied the petition; the Colorado Supreme Court ordered the secretary of state to exclude him and disregard write-in votes.
Reasoning
The core question was whether a State may enforce Section 3 against a federal officeholder or candidate. The Court explained that while States can set qualifications and remove state officers, the Constitution does not give States power to enforce Section 3 against federal offices. The Court relied on the Amendment’s text, historical practice, and the special national interest in uniform Presidential elections. It concluded that Congress, not individual States, has responsibility to enforce Section 3, and reversed the Colorado decision.
Real world impact
As a result, Colorado may not exclude the former President from its primary ballot under Section 3. The ruling prevents state-by-state disqualification of federal candidates based on the same alleged conduct, and it places the task of disqualification or disability removal with Congress. The Court’s judgment was unanimous on the outcome, though Justices wrote separately on the scope of the reasoning.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Barrett concurred in the judgment but would decide less; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson also concurred in the judgment but criticized the majority for deciding broader federal-enforcement questions unnecessarily.
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?