SCOTUS Overturns Colorado on Ballot Access 9-0

 

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. 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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Per curiam with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurring in the judgment. Barrett concurred in part and in the judgement.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 68 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Sotomayor et al. object to dicta about how the Constitutional provision would or would not be enforced at the federal level. From their opinion:

    Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “‘“ascertain[] what particular individuals”’” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous. To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.

    • #1
  2. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Job well done, ctlaw. Article plus supplementary Comment.

    • #2
  3. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    • #3
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Sotomayor et al. object to dicta about how the Constitutional provision would or would not be enforced at the federal level. From their opinion:

    Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “‘“ascertain[] what particular individuals”’” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous. To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.

    How does this apply to the issue at the Texas border?  

    • #4
  5. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    That is very good news. Thanks.

    • #5
  6. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    9-0.

    Wow.

    I will be honest I did not expect that.

    • #6
  7. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    9-0.

    Wow.

    I will be honest I did not expect that.

    That is because common sense is not as common as it used to be.

    • #7
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    9-0.

    Wow.

    I will be honest I did not expect that.

    I’ve always assumed the Colorado people knew it would happen.  That doesn’t mean it won’t accomplish their goals, regardless.  It depends in part on how the two sides play it.  

    • #8
  9. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Next step would be to assert Trump electors are state officers and will be scrutinized. Are Sotomayor et al. signaling that on p. 2 of their opinion:

    …No doubt, States have significant “authority over presidential electors” and, in turn, Presidential elections. Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 588 (2020). That power, however, is limited by “other constitutional constraint[s],” including federalism principles. Id., at 589.

    • #9
  10. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    • #10
  11. KenLange Coolidge
    KenLange
    @KenLange

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Next step would be to assert Trump electors are state officers and will be scrutinized. Are Sotomayor et al. signaling that on p. 2 of their opinion:

    …No doubt, States have significant “authority over presidential electors” and, in turn, Presidential elections. Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 588 (2020). That power, however, is limited by “other constitutional constraint[s],” including federalism principles. Id., at 589.

    It sounds to me more like they are warning against an “end run” around their decision. Most Particularly an ex post facto law or bill of attainder aimed at a particular candidate/circumstance. This approach was used to allow the law suit that Trump recently lost.

    • #11
  12. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    here is another win

     

    MOOORE Bad News for Lefties! BREAKING News Out of Texas Hands Biden Administration ANOTHER Huge Loss – Twitchy

     

    • #12
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    here is another win

     

    MOOORE Bad News for Lefties! BREAKING News Out of Texas Hands Biden Administration ANOTHER Huge Loss – Twitchy

     

    We need some of these lawyers doing this crazy stuff to get rid of Trump as a candidate to lose their license to practice law.

    • #13
  14. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    The Colorado Secretary of State said she was “disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment…”

    I think a 9-0 decision shows that the states never had that authority to begin with. 

    • #14
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    EJHill (View Comment):

    The Colorado Secretary of State said she was “disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment…”

    I think a 9-0 decision shows that the states never had that authority to begin with.

    No kidding

    • #15
  16. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    It seems to me that those of us who understand and support the intent of the Founders embodied in the Constitution need to be more active, whenever the US Congress or individual states create legislation that is unconstitutional, in challenging such law in a timely manner. I suspect that some challenge never happens so the laws stand and others the challenges are late after long application of the law has been in effect even if unconstitutional. Actually, perhaps there should be a procedure where there would be a court review for constitutionality if a congressional member or some number of members raises such a challenge, or at least something along those lines. 

    • #16
  17. DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

     

    • #17
  18. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Finally some good news for a change!

    • #18
  19. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    KenLange: It sounds to me more like they are warning against an “end run” around their decision. Most Particularly an ex post facto law or bill of attainder aimed at a particular candidate/circumstance. This approach was used to allow the law suit that Trump recently lost.

    The law Trump was charged on in NY has been on the books since 1956. Care to explain that take?

     

    • #19
  20. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    EJHill (View Comment):

    KenLange: It sounds to me more like they are warning against an “end run” around their decision. Most Particularly an ex post facto law or bill of attainder aimed at a particular candidate/circumstance. This approach was used to allow the law suit that Trump recently lost.

    The law Trump was charged on in NY has been on the books since 1956. Care to explain that take?

    He may have been referring to the repeal or repeals of the statute of limitations to allow the case(s) involving E. Jean Carroll.

    • #20
  21. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    EJHill (View Comment):

    KenLange: It sounds to me more like they are warning against an “end run” around their decision. Most Particularly an ex post facto law or bill of attainder aimed at a particular candidate/circumstance. This approach was used to allow the law suit that Trump recently lost.

    The law Trump was charged on in NY has been on the books since 1956. Care to explain that take?

     

    As for Executive Law 63(12), the issue is all of a sudden using it in a way that it has not been used before despite there assuredly  having been quite a few instances of people borrowing money for NY real estate deals under more dubious circumstances.

    But legal scholars noted that the current attorney general’s case is still breaking new ground; James is using the law in a way it hasn’t exactly been employed before.

    to the extent that Hochul had to come out and effectively tell people this was unique to the extreme crimes of Trump. Hint. Hint.

    • #21
  22. DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    MSNBC does not care how the Court rules. They are going to push that Insurrection narrative HARD!

    • #22
  23. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Not all roses:

    Haste and Acrimony Undermine a Unanimous Supreme Court in Trump-Eligibility Case

    But at the end of the day, in the haste of all the justices to put this pre-election dispute to bed, and in the determination of the liberals to leave open an avenue for post-election guerilla lawfare against a potential second Trump administration, the Court failed in its duty. It should have had the courage to say what the law is, and applied the plain meaning of Section 3 to the facts. Trump didn’t engage in insurrection. A Court unwilling to define the terms of the law for fear of saying so will inevitably leave the wound open.

     

     

    • #23
  24. DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

     

    • #24
  25. DMak Member
    DMak
    @DMak

    The usage of curiam—nine judges speaking as one voice—gives me some small comfort.

    • #25
  26. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    I expected a minority concurring opinion to the effect that it would look bad to both rig the election and keep the other side off the ballot altogether.  Our DemocracyTM  is all about preserving the appearance of legitimacy.

    • #26
  27. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    DMak (View Comment):
    The usage of curiam—nine judges speaking as one voice—gives me some small comfort.

    It does not mean unanimity. It effectively means unanimity of those who did not write separately.

    So you could have a per curiam opinion with a full dissent by up to 4 judges.

    Here they all appear to agree on a narrow dispositive issue and Sotomayor et al. want to leave it at that.

    • #27
  28. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    My Leftist friends are wide open on how corrupt the SCOTUS is and needs to be replaced.  Look for that to be the next step of this little game.   They can not stand a racist SCOTUS that supports the killing of gays and trans and encourages slavery in the South.

    Personally I am surprised that SCOTUS did not allow Trump be jailed much less that all of them backed his running for POTUS.

    • #28
  29. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    MSNBC does not care how the Court rules. They are going to push that Insurrection narrative HARD!

    Veissman!!

    • #29
  30. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    I have a good friend who grew up in Queens, NY now lives in Italy and has the same  accent and semi-raspy voice. He is a great scholar of opera and classical music, he studied at La Scala.  It’s hilarious listening to him drill-down into the finer points of artistry in this or that opera, or the more obscure interpretations of Gustave Mahler’s libretto,  sounding exactly like Donald Trump without even trying.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.