Trump v. Anderson
601 U. S. ____ (2024) (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress, not the individual states. States therefore lack the power to exclude a candidate for federal office, including the Presidency, from the ballot based on an alleged violation of Section 3.
Facts:
- Donald J. Trump served as President of the United States and previously took an oath to support the Constitution.
- After being defeated in the 2020 Presidential election, Trump's actions were alleged to have disrupted the peaceful transfer of power.
- On January 6, 2021, a crowd breached the U.S. Capitol while Congress was in session to certify the results of the 2020 election.
- A group of Colorado voters, Norma Anderson et al., contended that Trump intentionally organized and incited this crowd.
- Trump later became a candidate for the Republican Party's nomination for President in the 2024 election.
- The Colorado voters argued that Trump's actions constituted engaging in an insurrection, making him ineligible for the Presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of Colorado voters, Norma Anderson et al., filed a petition in a Colorado state district court against Donald J. Trump and the Colorado Secretary of State to bar Trump from the primary ballot.
- After a trial, the state district court found that Trump had 'engaged in insurrection' but ruled that Section 3 does not apply to the President, denying the petition.
- The voters, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the Colorado Supreme Court.
- The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, reversed in part, holding that Section 3 does apply to the President and ordering Trump, the appellee, to be excluded from the state's presidential primary ballot.
- The Colorado Supreme Court stayed its own ruling to allow for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Donald J. Trump, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Colorado Supreme Court err by ordering a presidential candidate excluded from the state's primary ballot on the grounds that he is disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the Colorado Supreme Court erred because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. The Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally altered the balance of federal and state power, generally expanding federal authority. While states retain power over their own offices, this does not extend to federal offices, as powers over federal officials must be delegated to, not reserved by, the states. The Constitution does not delegate Section 3 enforcement power to the states; Section 5 explicitly grants this enforcement power to Congress. Allowing state-by-state enforcement would create a chaotic 'patchwork' of differing standards and outcomes, undermining the national character of the presidential election and severing the direct link between the people and the national government.
Concurring - Justice Barrett
Yes, the Colorado Supreme Court erred because States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. This narrow principle is sufficient to resolve the case, and the Court should not have addressed the more complex question of whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle for enforcement. In a politically charged case during an election season, judicial restraint is paramount. The Court's writings should aim to 'turn the national temperature down, not up,' and the most important message is the Court's unanimity on the outcome.
Concurring - Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson
Yes, the Colorado Supreme Court erred because allowing a state to disqualify a presidential candidate under Section 3 would create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork that is at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. This narrow ground is a secure and sufficient basis to resolve the case. The majority needlessly goes further to decide that enforcement of Section 3 can only occur through specific legislation enacted by Congress under Section 5. This holding decides 'momentous and difficult issues' not before the Court, foreclosing other potential avenues of federal enforcement and attempting to insulate the petitioner from future controversy.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision decisively centralizes the power to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment for federal offices within Congress, precluding individual states from disqualifying federal candidates on these grounds. The ruling effectively halted state-level efforts to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, ensuring national uniformity in eligibility for federal office. However, the separate concurrences highlight a significant fissure within the Court, leaving unresolved the precise mechanisms through which Congress or other federal actors could enforce the disqualification, a question that may arise in future cases.
