The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former President Donald Trump could not be removed from the ballot in Colorado or any other state \u2013 a sweeping and historic ruling that brushed aside a lawsuit claiming that he disqualified himself from office because of his actions on January 6, 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former President Donald Trump could not be removed from the ballot in Colorado or any other state \u2013 a sweeping and historic ruling that brushed aside a lawsuit claiming that he disqualified himself from office because of his actions on January 6, 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the justices did not say if Trump was in fact an insurrectionist and split on technicalities of how the ban could be enforced \u2013 a distinction with potentially broad consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The opinion reversed a stunning decision last year from Colorado\u2019s top court that found Trump engaged in an insurrection because of his remarks outside the White House before the 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Those actions, the state court ruled, violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and left Trump ineligible to appear on the state\u2019s ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since then, both Maine and Illinois also moved to take Trump off the ballot. Monday\u2019s Supreme Court decision appeared certain to shut down those and other efforts to remove the frontrunner for the GOP nomination from the ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cStates may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,\u201d the court\u2019s unsigned majority opinion read. \u201cBut states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s what to know about the opinion and what it means:
There was no equivocation in the Supreme Court\u2019s short opinion: States do not have the power to remove a federal candidate \u2013 especially a president \u2013 from the ballot under the Constitution\u2019s \u201cinsurrectionist ban.\u201d It is Congress, the court wrote, that can enforce the provision, not states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe notion that the Constitution grants the states freer rein than Congress to decide how Section 3 should be enforced with respect to federal officer is simply implausible,\u201d the court\u2019s unsigned opinion read.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What that means is that the impact of the decision will sweep far wider than the controversy at issue in Colorado. It means that any state would be overstepping its power by trying to knock Trump off the ballot \u2013 a position that will almost certainly shut down similar \u201cinsurrectionist\u201d lawsuits across the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In that sense, the court\u2019s opinion was a significant victory for Trump, vanquishing a legal theory that has for months threatened his viability for a second term.<\/p>\n