Case Summary and Outcome

The United States Supreme Court ruled that the State of Colorado does not have the power to exclude President Donald J. Trump from the 2024 presidential primary ballot, despite the fact he had engaged in an insurrection after having sworn an oath as former President. After the 2020 residential elections, President Trump delivered many speeches inciting crowds to disrupt the transfer of power to President Biden and breach the Capitol building. His actions led a group of voters to file a petition before the Denver District Court against the Colorado Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, requesting to remove President Trump’s name from the Republican primary ballot. They asserted that, pursuant to Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which lays out the conditions to be disqualified from office—, President Trump did not qualify to serve as President.  The District Court found that even though President Trump had, in fact, engaged in an insurrection, Section Three does not apply to a “President.” The plaintiffs appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court which reversed the ruling, arguing that Section Three did apply and that President Trump could not be listed on the primary ballot. President Trump challenged the latter decision before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) which reversed the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Colorado. According to SCOTUS, “States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section [Three] with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

---

Facts

On December 19, 2020, a few weeks after his defeat in the presidential elections, former President Donald J. Trump urged his supporters to protest the election results. He tweeted, “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6. Be there, will be wild!” He aimed to pressure the congressional vote count seeking the Senate to overturn the results, as he believed the elections were rigged. Until January 6, 2021, President Trump upheld his claims about the alleged fraudulent nature of the elections and repeated his calls for protest many times. His words enflamed his supporters who made open threats online, which were “widely reported in the press.” (Colorado Supreme Court, Anderson v. Griswold, para. 207) As a result, federal agencies believed that the supporters were planning on committing acts of violence and determined to “win a small war.” [1]

On January 6, 2021, “tens of thousands of President Trump’s supporters” assembled in the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. (Colorado Supreme Court, Anderson v. Griswold, para. 212) The Secret Service had implemented security measures resulting in the confiscation of hundreds of concealed weapons. Later that day, President Trump gave a speech in which he insisted that the elections were rigged and encouraged the protesters to march to the Capitol to make their voices heard “peacefully and patriotically.” (Colorado Supreme Court, Anderson v. Griswold, para. 244) As instructed, the crowd walked down to the Capitol building and stormed it, intending to block the certification of the election.

On September 6, 2023, six voters commenced proceedings against the Colorado Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, asking the Denver District Court to remove President Trump’s name from the Republican presidential primary ballot for the 2024 elections. On November 17, 2023, the District Court issued a decision, holding that President Trump had actually engaged in an insurrection on January 6. However, the court said, he could not be excluded from the primary ballot as Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which contains the conditions to be disqualified from office—did not apply to a President as he is not an officer of the United States within the meaning of that provision. Therefore, it denied the petition to remove Trump from the primary ballot.

On November 20, the plaintiffs and President Trump asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review the first-instance decision. Said court issued a ruling on December 19, reversing in part and affirming in part. It declared that the Presidency is an office of the United States—therefore Section 3  applied in the present case. The Supreme Court of Colorado held that President Trump had, in fact, engaged in the events of January 6, which definitely constituted an “insurrection.” Thus, President Trump’s speech effectively incited the people to breach the Capitol—an expression not protected by the First Amendment. Hence, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that President Trump should be excluded from the primary ballot and ordered that any write-in votes cast for him should be disregarded.

President Trump challenged this decision before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). On January 5, 2024, it granted his petition for a writ for certiorari.

[1] Among other federal agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation received many tips regarding the potential for violence on January 6. According to the Colorado Supreme Court record, one tip said, “They think they will have a large enough group to march into DC armed and will outnumber the police so they can’t be stopped… They believe that since the election was stolen it’s their constitutional right to overtake the government and during this coup no U.S. laws apply. Their plan is to literally kill. Please, please take this tip seriously and investigate further.”

---

Decision Overview

On March 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision on the matter. The main issue for the Court was whether the Colorado Supreme Court “err[ed] in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot.”  [p. 3]. In other words, the Court had to determine whether a State, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, had the authority to keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot.

President Trump challenged the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court on several grounds. Although his claims and arguments were not incorporated in the Court’s decision, he previously claimed before the second instance court that State courts do not have the jurisdiction to hear the voters’ claim because there are precedents that “[bar] the litigation of constitutional claims in a section 1-1-113 action.” (Colorado Supreme Court, Anderson v. Griswold, para. 57) He also invoked his First Amendment right which prohibits restrictions on free speech from the government. According to him, his January 6 speeches were protected and shouldn’t constitute the basis for his disqualification from office.

Furthermore, he added that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to his case.

Section 3 provides the following:

“No person shall be a Senator of Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of Two-third of each House, remove such disability.”

Considering this, Trump asserted that the President is not an officer of the government but of the Constitution. Consequently, Section 3 did not apply to the aforementioned office. Additionally, he argued that the Secretary of State did not have the authority to investigate the qualifications of a candidate; instead, the Constitution granted this power exclusively to Congress. To back this claim, Trump referred to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, and to the Twelfth, Fourteenth, and Twentieth Amendments, which “reflect a textually demonstrable commitment to Congress of the authority to assess presidential candidate qualifications.” (Colorado Supreme Court, Anderson v. Griswold, para. 112)

In their referral to the U.S. Supreme Court, the respondents argued that Section 3 applied to candidates for federal office. Therefore candidates’ disqualification under this provision encompassed the Presidency. Considering that President Trump took a presidential oath in 2017, the respondents held, he met the requirements set by Section 3.

The respondents also considered that the former President’s actions on January 6 clearly prove that he was “constitutionally ineligible to serve as President again” [p. 2] as he engaged in an insurrection and a direct attack on the Capitol building—as corroborated by the District Court and the Colorado Supreme Court. In light of this context, the respondents insisted that he was not a qualified candidate.

They also mentioned that State enforcement of Section 3 does not limit the power of Congress to “remove any disability,” as provided for in the last paragraph of the foregoing Section. Moreover, the respondents invoked Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992. Their claims were specifically grounded on sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113. According to them, the Secretary of State would commit a “breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act” [p. 2] if she lists an unqualified candidate on the ballot. Consequently, the respondents requested, pursuant to Section 3, that the Colorado Secretary of State refrain from listing President Trump on the primary ballot for the 5 March 2024 election.

To unravel whether President Trump should be listed on the Colorado presidential primary ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court focused its analysis essentially on Section 3 and its enforcement. The Court had to determine whether States, in addition to Congress, had the power to enforce Section 3.

The U.S. Supreme Court relied on Seminole Tribe of Fla v. Florida, 517 U.S. (1996) to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment as a whole impinged on State autonomy as it expanded federal power. Specifically, Section 3 of the aforementioned Amendment, the Court opined, restricted state autonomy by ensuring that Congress retained a rather superior power in comparison to States. SCOTUS added that the main purpose behind Section 3 was to prevent unqualified individuals from holding offices provided they did not meet the necessary requirements.

Accordingly, the Court had to determine if President Trump was covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequently, the Court  mentioned Section 5 of the same Amendment, which vests Congress the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment].” In this context, the Supreme Court held, following the precedent laid out in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. (1997), that the Constitution empowered Congress in its application of Sections 3 and 5 of the aforementioned Amendment—especially Section 5 which “cast[ed] upon Congress the responsibility of seeing to it, for the future, that all the sections of the Amendment are carried out in good faith.” [p. 5]

Despite this, the Supreme Court acknowledged the role that States play in the federal system, as well as their power to establish the electoral process to choose their own officers—as said in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. (2014), Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. (1999), and Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. (1900). However, it unwaveringly concluded, following McCulloch v. Maryland, 316 (1819), that the Fourteenth Amendment restricted that power when it comes to federal officeholders and candidates, inter alia, the Presidency. As explained by the Court, allowing States the same faculties would “raise serious questions about the scope of that power.” [p. 10]

Moreover, SCOTUS brought to attention that the respondents did not advance any precedent, following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, in which a State enforced Section 3 against federal officers. Accordingly, the Court insisted that States had limited power when it comes to federal officials—standing firm by the principle previously held in Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. (2020) that “the Constitution guarantees the entire independence of the General Government from any control by the respective States.” [p. 7]

The Supreme Court also referred to U.S Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. (1995). By this precedent, officers “owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people [and] their election and qualifications must be specifically delegated to, rather than reserved by, the State.” [p. 6]

Persuaded by previous precedents, the Supreme Court held that imposing restrictions on the enforcement of Section 3 was crucial for national interest reasons. As noted by the Court, a President represents “all the voters in the Nation” [p. 11] and not just a particular State. Correspondingly, granting States the power to disqualify a Presidential candidate, the Court said, would most probably result in various views regarding that single candidate “based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record).” [p. 12] This, in turn, could lead to the destabilization of electoral results as a whole. For the Supreme Court, presidential elections would be even more turbulent if States enforced Section 3 after the Nation voted.

Furthermore, SCOTUS held that the Constitution conferred the power to enforce Section 3 only to Congress, even against States. Particularly, the last sentence of Section 3 highlighted the substantial power granted to Congress: “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” Hence, the Court recognized that Congress could use this power at any time. Permitting States to enforce Section 3, the Court said, would limit  Congress’ power.

The Supreme Court further based its decision on a historical chronology of the legislation—by referring to the Enforcement Act of 1870, enacted by Congress, and the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3. These norms sanctioned engagements in insurrections or rebellions by disqualification from holding office. The Court seemed to lean towards the idea that the regulations regarding disqualification were all very specific and established that the power to disqualify federal officeholders rested exclusively within Congress. Furthermore, it stated that Section 3 could be understood as the successor of the aforementioned legislations and, therefore, would “proscribe conduct of individuals” [p. 11] which would reflect, as the Court declared, “congruence and proportionality between preventing or remedying that conduct.” [p. 13]

Consequently, the Court repudiated the disqualification of federal officeholders and candidates when enforced by States. It recognized, nonetheless, the possibility of disqualification through civil or criminal proceedings.

For all the above reasons, SCOTUS held expressly that “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency” [p. 13] since the Constitution conferred this authority to Congress. Correspondingly, the Court, unanimously, reversed the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Colorado.

---