Supreme Court rules in favor of 1968 Wharton graduate, former President Donald Trump in ballot eligibility case

The Supreme Court of the United States deemed 1968 Wharton graduate and former President Donald Trump eligible for the Colorado and Maine primary ballots in a March 4 ruling.

The unanimous decision, which overturned a Colorado Supreme Court decision ruling Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot due to his role in inciting an insurrection on the Capitol, came nearly a month after oral arguments were presented in Trump v. Anderson. The decision ensures that Trump's name will appear on both the primary and general election ballots in Colorado, Maine, and other states that have issued similar challenges. 

On Dec. 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump from the state’s primary election ballot after a four-justice majority found that he engaged in "overt, voluntary" participation in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Trump appealed the Colorado ruling, leading the Supreme Court to agree to rule on his eligibility for the state’s primary ballot.

In a departure from its typical timeline, the Supreme Court expedited its decision on Trump v. Anderson shortly before Super Tuesday on March 5 — when primary elections were held across 16 states, including Colorado and Maine.

The Supreme Court's ruling hinged on the applicability of Section 3 of the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment — a Reconstruction Amendment adopted shortly following the Civil War — to the presidency and which legislative bodies have the ability to enforce the Amendment. The Amendment states that no one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, is eligible to hold any office in the country.  

The Supreme Court unanimously held that individual states are unable to enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office, though they may continue to do so for state offices.

“Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,” the opinion wrote.

The decision and oral arguments avoided addressing whether the events of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot constituted an insurrection and whether Trump actively engaged in it.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns about the potential consequences of removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado during oral arguments, suggesting that other states might abuse the power to remove candidates. 

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say ‘whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot,’” Roberts said at the time. 

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan raised questions during oral arguments about the wording of the 14th Amendment and the implications of a single state banning a candidate in a presidential election.

“The ‘patchwork’ that would likely result from state enforcement would ‘sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States’ as a whole,” the opinion read. 

The opinion also emphasized that the enforcement of the disqualification provisions of the 14th Amendment would require Congress to pass legislation. 

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurred only in judgement, criticizing the five majority justices for violating the principle of judicial restraint. They argued that — by providing opinions on the entities responsible for enforcing Section 3 and dictating the specific methods they should use — the majority closed off other possible avenues for federal enforcement.

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

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also wrote a short concurring opinion criticizing both the majority and the liberal justices' concurrence. In response to the majority, she argued that the court was not compelled to address specific methods of enforcement, but also critiqued Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson's concurring opinion, writing “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.” 

Lawsuits challenging Trump’s eligibility were raised in at least 31 states prior to the decision, at least 20 of which failed for varying reasons. A case in Pennsylvania was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

In September 2023, The Daily Pennsylvanian reported that an article written by two conservative law professors in the Penn Law Review concluded Trump was constitutionally ineligible to serve as president again.