Education / Entertainment / Events / Health & Beauty / Relationships/Marriages/Human Behavior / Services

Supreme Court Ruling: Individual States Cannot Determine Candidate Eligibility

by Susan Sun Nunamaker · March 4, 2024

Dear Friends & Neighbors,

The inside of the United States Supreme Court-9 chairs of the Supreme Court Justice, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Inside_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.jpg (Attribution: Phil Roeder, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/, Presented at: WindermereSun.com)

Windermere Blue Sunset (credit: Windermere Sun-Susan Sun Nunamaker)

(Please click on red links & note magenta)

For updated global info & data on COVID-19, please click HERE. For updated global data & graphs on COVID-19, please click HERE. For COVID-19 cases and death counts in USA by state, please click HERE. For COVID-19 cases in Florida via Florida COVID Action, please click HERE. For COVID-19 cases in Florida, via Florida state government, please click HERE.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case that could potentially disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the 2024 presidential election. This case stems from rulings in Colorado and Maine where Trump was declared ineligible to run under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disallows anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. from holding office. The core of the debate in the Supreme Court centered not on whether Trump incited an insurrection but on whether individual states have the authority to disqualify federal candidates and on the interpretation of the insurrection clause itself.

During the arguments, justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum appeared skeptical about allowing individual states to make determinations that could have national implications for election eligibility. They expressed concerns that such decisions could lead to a fragmented electoral process where the eligibility of candidates could vary significantly from state to state, potentially undermining the democratic process.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case, Trump v. Anderson, is highly anticipated and expected to be expedited given the upcoming primary elections. The outcome could have significant implications for the 2024 election and beyond, setting a precedent for how the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause can be applied to disqualify candidates from federal office. As of now, a final ruling has not been issued, but legal experts predict that a decision could be released within weeks to address the matter before the primary elections intensify.

For details of the case Trump v. Anderson, please refer to the excerpt, in italics, below:

Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 601 U.S. ___ (2024), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that states could not determine eligibility for federal office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected former president Donald Trump‘s presidential eligibility on the basis of his actions during the January 6 Capitol attack, adhering to the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The case was known as Anderson v. Griswold in the Colorado state courts.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump’s actions before and during the attack constituted engaging in insurrection; their assertion is that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies presidential candidates who have engaged in insurrection against the United States. The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in Anderson v. Griswold was the first time that a presidential candidate was disqualified from office in a state on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court stayed its decision until a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On January 5, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Trump’s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in Anderson v. Griswold on an accelerated pace; oral arguments were held on February 8, 2024. On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision. All nine justices held that an individual state cannot determine eligibility under Section 3 for federal office holders, and that such power is conferred exclusively to the federal government. A majority of the court also ruled that only Congress can enforce Section 3, and that the courts (federal or otherwise) cannot therefore declare a candidate ineligible for office under the said Section 3 unless an Act of Congress explicitly grants them that power; four justices disagreed with the latter decision and expressed concern in concurrences that this ruling went farther than needed at this time.