Supreme Court Restores Trump’s Name to Colorado Ballot in Unanimous Decision

The United States Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of President Donald Trump in his challenge against the state of Colorado’s attempt to remove his name from the 2024 primary ballot.

The Colorado Supreme Court found Trump ineligible for the state’s ballot in December, ruling he was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The Civil War-era provision bars individuals who took an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the court’s ruling stated.

A group of Colorado voters, backed by the left-wing group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued to remove Trump in September.

The lawsuit argues that Trump’s alleged role in “recruiting, inciting and encouraging a violent mob” on Jan. 6, 2021, was disqualifying.

Maine and, just last week, Illinois, followed by also finding Trump ineligible.

Over 60 challenges have been filed in various states challenging Trump’s eligibility for the ballot, according to court documents.

On Monday, the SCOTUS ruled that Trump’s name cannot be removed from the state’s ballot.

All nine justices ruled in favor of Trump in the case, which will impact the status of efforts in several other states to remove the likely GOP nominee from their respective ballots.

The court considered for the first time the meaning and reach of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Challenges citing the provision have been filed to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot in over 30 states.

“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the Court wrote.

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

“But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

Colorado’s Secretary of State Jena Griswold issued a statement Monday on the opinion saying:

“The United States Supreme Court has ruled that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates.

“In accordance with this decision, Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary,” she said.

Trump reacted to the ruling in a post on Truth Social saying, “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!”

In more than two hours of spirited, often tense arguments last month, the nine justices asked tough questions of both sides about whether the president or a presidential candidate is exempt from the constitutional provision adopted after the Civil War.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh spoke for colleagues when saying they were confronting “difficult questions.”

“When you look at Section 3, the term insurrection jumps out,” Kavanaugh said.

“And the questions are: What does that mean? How do you define it? Who decides? Who decides whether someone engaged in it?”

Kavanaugh noted the courts looked at these questions in an 1869 decision, known as “Griffin’s case.”

The 19th-century ruling found that an act of Congress was necessary to enforce the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding federal office.

“These are difficult questions, and you look right at Section 5 of the 14th Amendment … and that tells you Congress has the primary role here,” Kavanaugh said.

“I think what’s different is the processes, the definition, who decides questions really jump out at you when you look at Section 3.”

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Colorado’s attorney Jason Murray about the “consequences” of the state’s position.

“What do you do with the consequences of your position?” he said.

“There will be disqualification proceedings on the other side, and some will succeed in very quick order.

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democrat is, ‘you’re off the ballot.’

“It would then come down to a small number of states deciding the election.

“That’s a pretty severe consequence.”

Justice Samuel Alito pressed Murray to “grapple” with “what some people have seen as the consequences of the argument that you’re advancing, which is that there will be conflicts in decisions among the states.”

“The different states will disqualify different candidates,” Alito said.

“But I’m not getting a whole lot of help from you about how this would not be an unmanageable situation.”

READ MORE – Georgia Judge McAfee Suggests DA Fani Willis to Be Disqualified from Trump Case

SHARE:
Advertise with Slay News
join telegram

READERS' POLL

Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Subscribe
Notify of
1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x