Supreme Court Rules Unanimously: States Cannot Remove Trump from Ballot

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reinstated Donald Trump to the 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state efforts to hold him accountable for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

A day before the Super Tuesday primaries, the justices ruled that states cannot prevent presidential candidates from appearing on ballots without action from Congress first, under a post-Civil War constitutional provision.

Trump celebrated the news, posting “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!” on his Truth Social account.

Efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, and elsewhere to remove Trump from the ballot due to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election were halted by the decision.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold expressed disappointment over the court’s ruling but acknowledged Trump’s eligibility to run in Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary.

This case marked the court’s first involvement with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who engaged in insurrection from holding office again.

The Supreme Court overturned Colorado’s application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Trump, stating that this had never been done before to a presidential candidate.

Some have warned that requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could lead to renewed attempts to disqualify Trump if he wins the election, potentially causing a constitutional crisis.

Both sides requested expedited work by the court, which had a quick turnaround on the case, ruling in Trump’s favor after hearing arguments just a month prior.

This case is the court’s most significant involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore, potentially impacting Trump’s chance of becoming president again.

The arguments centered on whether Congress must act before states can invoke the 14th Amendment, with concerns over its application to the presidency.

Lawyers argued both for and against Trump’s removal from the ballot, with Trump’s legal team stating that Section 3 should not apply to presidential candidates.

The decision was made by a court that included justices appointed by Trump, who has faced several legal battles in recent years.

The case raises questions about the court’s intervention in a presidential election and the implications for future elections.

The content presented here is copyrighted material, and any redistribution or reproduction without permission is prohibited.