5 main points learned from the Supreme Court discussions in the Trump election dispute

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Trump v. Anderson, which centers on whether former President Donald Trump can be excluded from Colorado’s primary ballot due to his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The case revolves around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. The provision was originally enacted to prevent former Confederates from serving in government, but has rarely been enforced in the past 150 years. A group of Colorado voters challenged Trump’s eligibility for office, leading to a divided ruling by the state’s Supreme Court in December. During the oral arguments, both sides and the Colorado secretary of state presented their arguments to the justices, who appeared skeptical of the state’s ability to enforce Section 3 in this case. Here are five key takeaways from the hearing:

1. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the “ahistorical” nature of the Colorado voters’ position, pointing out that the 14th Amendment was meant to restrict state power, not expand it. He also noted that the power to enforce the amendment lies with Congress, not the states.

2. The Colorado attorney representing the voters argued that states have broad power to run their own elections under Article II of the Constitution. However, Roberts countered that the specific power of disqualification, which is at the heart of this case, is not addressed in that article.

3. The justices seemed hesitant to give states the authority to enforce Section 3, as it could potentially lead to a patchwork of different interpretations and applications across the country.

4. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the issue of disqualification should be left to Congress, as they have the power to enforce the 14th Amendment and could create a uniform standard for all states to follow.

5. Overall, the justices appeared to lean towards allowing Trump to remain on the ballot, with some expressing concern about the potential consequences of allowing states to enforce Section 3 in this manner. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks.  

Share This Article
Leave a comment