On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 6-3 decision that former President Donald Trump cannot be barred from the 2024 presidential primary ballots based on allegations of insurrection related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
The ruling overturns lower court decisions, particularly from Colorado, that had sought to disqualify Trump from appearing on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that states do not have the authority to unilaterally enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. The majority opinion highlighted concerns that allowing individual states to make such determinations could lead to inconsistent and chaotic electoral outcomes across the country.
The decision underscores that any enforcement of Section 3 regarding presidential candidates must come through federal legislation, not state action.
The ruling has significant implications for Trump’s ongoing legal battles and his political future. It ensures that Trump remains eligible to appear on primary ballots, despite the accusations stemming from his actions on January 6. Trump and his supporters celebrated the ruling as a victory for democracy and the rule of law, asserting that it protects the integrity of the electoral process from partisan manipulation.
Critics, however, expressed disappointment and concern that the ruling could undermine efforts to hold individuals accountable for actions deemed as insurrection.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in their concurring opinion, agreed that allowing states to enforce Section 3 could create a chaotic patchwork but disagreed with the majority’s broader implications, suggesting that the ruling overly restricts how Section 3 can be applied.
This decision marks a critical moment in the ongoing debate over presidential eligibility and accountability, highlighting the complexities of interpreting constitutional provisions in modern contexts. As Trump continues to navigate his legal and political challenges, the Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that he remains a viable candidate in the upcoming election cycle.