Monday’s unanimous Supreme Court decision restoring former President Trump to the Republican primary ballot in Colorado goes a long way toward assuring public confidence in the outcome — whatever it may be — of this November’s presidential election.
Although the justices disagreed about the scope of the decision — four justices would have based it on narrower grounds than the majority did — the court was in complete agreement on the fundamental point: Individual states like Colorado lack the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against presidential candidates. (Section 3 bars from certain state and federal offices particular individuals who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, have thereafter engaged in insurrection against it.)
In reaching this conclusion, the justices rejected the invitation to reverse an understanding of Section 3 that had prevailed since about the time that provision became part of the Constitution. In effect, the court unanimously rejected a radically revisionist interpretation of Section 3 that came into vogue only after Donald Trump’s election to the presidency in 2016. Rather than lending itself to the attempt to destroy Trump’s candidacy through the weaponization of the law, the court took a measured, common-sense approach to the issues. The essential difference between the justices was not, in any way, explicable on political or partisan grounds. It concerned the question of the extent of “judicial restraint.” Whether on the majority’s or the concurrences’ vision of judicial restraint, Trump clearly won this case.
Checking States’ Power
The
