In a crucial recent development, the Supreme Court issued aper curiam order, ruling that former President Donald Trump can not be disqualified from the ballot.
The justices indicated that they wouldn’t allow states to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Notably, the Constitution states that “no person shall” hold office in federal or state government after engaging in “insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” However, the justices assert that this section only applies if Congress passes implementing legislation, suggesting that individual states shouldn’t attempt to exclude certain candidates from the ballot.
In the opinion of the majority, “if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring candidates from running in the first place, Congress would be forced to exercise its disability removal power before voting begins if it wished for its decision to have any effect on the current election cycle.”
Despite this unanimous result, there was disagreement among the justices about the implications of the ruling. For instance, Justice Sotomayor expressed concern that the majority was extending the ruling’s scope by dictating “which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so.” Conversely, the other female justices and Justice Barrett argued that potential disruption of the democratic process warranted the ruling and called for unity in light of the politically charged issue.
The Court’s decision may imply tacit endorsement of a significant shift in Constitutional interpretation, a contentious issue that will undoubtedly continue to be vigorously debated among legal professionals and constitutional scholars.