Supreme Court Rules on Trump Ballot Case

Virtually every blue state in the country has made a move or is considering removing Donald Trump from the ballot.

Because Trump was appealing the case to the Supreme Court, most of the cases that have been decided against him at the state level have been stayed pending the Supreme Court ruling.

Well, the Supreme Court ruled, and it is a good day for Donald J. Trump.

Trump Gets the Win

Democrats can gripe all they want about this decision, but it was a rare unanimous decision by the Supreme Court.

Every justice ruled in favor of putting Donald Trump back on the ballot, with the common narrative being neither one person nor one state should get to decide the presidential election.

The court unanimously agreed that in order for a presidential candidate to be removed from consideration, it must be an act of Congress.

For state and local positions, however, the court stated that states still have the authority to remove candidates from the ballot.

The Supreme Court ruled, "We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. 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 has already announced that Colorado will abide by the ruling, stating, "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.”

As we noted above, this was a unanimous decision by the court, with all three liberal justices releasing a statement that while ruling with the majority, there was some resistance.

Their opinion stated, "The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.

“We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.”

While that opinion took a shot at the conservative majority, the fact is every liberal justice confronted the issue of a single state dictating the outcome of the election by disqualifying the candidate.

That opinion seems politically charged to me, when this was clearly going to be a unanimous decision after hearing arguments.