Trump’s SCOTUS Win Is Even Bigger Than the Pundits Realize

On March 4, the Supreme Court decided the case of Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, involving the effort of Colorado to kick Donald Trump off the state primary election ballot.

Colorado was not the only state that acted to disqualify Trump. Illinois and Maine had taken similar steps, and there were efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in over twenty other states. The case turned on the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 3 provides, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office … under the United States, who … shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” The plaintiffs argued that Trump engaged in “insurrection” on January 6, 2021 and that he should be barred from the ballot in Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court endorsed that view.

The U.S. Supreme Court put a definitive end to all such efforts. The court, in a 9 – 0 ruling, wrote: “This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude the States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

The court went further and also ruled that legislation passed by Congress (under Section 5) was the only way the insurrection clause could be applied to a candidate for federal office. The court wrote: “Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States.”

Four Justices (Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson) concurred with the result that states had no power to enforce Section 3 for federal offices but expressed the view that the court went too far in holding that only Congress could enforce Section 3. This view might have opened the door to federal courts or the Department of Justice trying to enforce Section 3. The 9 – 0 per curiam opinion closes the door on that.

The court does not want insurrection cases cooked up by Merrick Garland or some special prosecutor. From now on, it’s an act of Congress or nothing when it comes to applying Section 3 to federal officeholders and candidates.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court did not rule on the issue of whether Trump was or was not an insurrectionist. The Colorado Supreme Court did find that Trump was an insurrectionist. But once the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Colorado had no ability at all to remove Trump from the ballot, the insurrectionist label became moot.

Colorado has no power to remove Trump from the ballot whether he was an insurrectionist or not. The insurrectionist label is only relevant if Congress wants to remove Trump from the ballot or disqualify him from taking office if he wins in 2024. The Democrats may try this stunt in Congress next January 6^th. If they do, they are the real insurrectionists.

Corporate leaders and institutional fiduciaries looking to incorporate state of the art predictive analytics to their risk mitigation and strategic analysis should click the link to learn more about Raven Predictive Analytics®.