The Supreme Court Says States Can’t Keep Trump Off the Ballot
Mar 8, 2024
auto_awesome
The podcast discusses the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's ballot eligibility under the 14th Amendment, debate on Congress's enforcement role, challenges in disqualifying insurrectionists, analyzing the January 6 events for insurrection, judicial restraint in election matters, and reflections on the Trump v. Anderson decision.
States cannot bar insurrectionists from federal office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Congress alone may enforce Section 3, avoiding a chaotic patchwork of state-level ballot eligibility decisions.
Deep dives
Supreme Court Reverses Colorado Decision on Trump Ballot Removal
The Supreme Court overturned Colorado's decision to exclude President Trump from its primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The unanimous ruling stated that states cannot bar insurrectionists from federal office. While five justices held that only Congress can enforce Section 3, concerns were raised over the lack of briefing and historical context in the additional decisions made by the Court.
Debate on Court's Decision and Legislative Enforcement of Section 3
The discussion focused on the Court's avoidance of state-level ballot eligibility decisions to prevent chaos and the view that Congress must act before disqualifying an insurrectionist from office. There were concerns about the limit on congressional authority for enforcement and contrasting perspectives on the need for legislative action to disqualify individuals meeting the criteria of insurrection under Section 3.
Interpretation of Section 3 and Actions on Insurrection
Debates emerged on whether Section 3 requires Congress to pass legislation for enforcement, with critics highlighting issues of overreaching and lack of historical basis for additional rulings. There was disagreement on whether President Trump's actions met the standard for engaging in insurrection on January 6, and discussions on potential legislative measures to enforce Section 3 requirements.
Judicial Restraint, Structural Concerns, and Definitions of Insurrection
Analysis included the distinction between riot and insurrection and concerns about broad definitions in legal actions against individuals. The focus on judicial minimalism and worries about prolonged implications of expansive interpretations were highlighted. Disagreements on the definition of insurrection and considerations for avoiding partisan enforcement actions were central to the discussions.
On Monday March 4th, the Supreme Court reversed Colorado’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot. The Court unanimously held that individual states cannot bar insurrectionists from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Five Justices went further, ruling that Congress alone may enforce Section 3. In this episode, constitutional scholars Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Court’s 9-0 decision to avoid a chaotic “patchwork” of state-level ballot eligibility decisions and the 5-4 majority’s view that Section 3 requires Congress to act before an insurrectionist may be disqualified from office.