This Monday, March 4, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit filed by the state of Colorado to disqualify Donald Trump from primary elections across the country under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits officials from holding public office after participate in an “insurrection.” For the highest judicial body, this section does not apply to the figure of the president and exceeds the power of the states over federal matters. With the decision, the magnate's path is paved to be chosen as the Republican Party candidate for President.
First modification:
4 min
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump. This Monday, the highest body of Justice once again included Trump in the primary runoff after ruling that the former president was not responsible for the assault on the Capitol in January 2021.
It is good news for the Republican Party favorite, but bad news for some states like Colorado, Illinois and Maine, which hoped to be able to remove Trump from the nationwide primaries by taking advantage of a post-Civil War constitutional provision, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“This is for future presidents, this is not for me (…) This is for future presidents, for all presidents,” Trump said after saying that he felt “honored” by the Court's decision during an interview with conservative journalist Howie Carr.
The amendment prevents former officials who “participated in an insurrection” from holding public office again. And, based on this, six Colorado voters who wanted to remove Trump from the presidential race pointed out that the president participated in an insurrection during the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, by instigating his followers to march to the Capitol building. legislative power.
The Colorado Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, decided that the provision, Section 3, could apply to Trump, who that court said incited the attack on the Capitol. No court had previously applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.
But Trump decided to appeal this ruling – and also those of the states of Maine and Illinois – and in early February asked the US Supreme Court for a ruling to avoid going “against the will of the voters.”
“The court should quickly and decisively end these vote disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and promise to unleash chaos if other state courts and officials follow Colorado's lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential candidate on their ballots,” Trump’s report said.
The Supreme Court justices' decision was unanimous in favor of Trump and against Colorado's position. Also by the three liberal judges –Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson–, who stated that trying to veto Trump from the elections through this mechanism “is not sustainable.”
Among the different reasons given, the judges agreed that individual states cannot prohibit candidates from holding federal office since, according to the court, that is a responsibility of Congress.
In addition, they also pointed out that Section 3 of the amendment does not refer to the office of president and, therefore, would not apply to him.
Open door for a constitutional crisis?
This Supreme Court decision opens the door to other possibilities. It contemplates that, in a hypothetical scenario, the Democratic-controlled Congress rejects the certification of Trump's election on January 6, 2025, under the same Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A scenario that could become a real institutional crisis and that could bounce the issue back to the courts.
For the moment, the only certainty is that Trump will be able to continue in the presidential race. Although the president has several cases against him still open, and it is expected that on June 6 the courts will define whether or not the magnate exercised electoral obstruction – that is, trying to prevent Biden from being sworn in – during the assault on the Capitol.
For Democratic lawyers, Trump's actions on January 6 – when he asked his followers “fight like hell”– is more than enough reason to apply Section 3 – and other charges – against him. Likewise, not mentioning the position of the Presidency does not exempt its application for the occupant of the position.
Take note: even as many expect a ruling against our plaintiffs in #TrumpVsAndersonthere isn't a mob outside the Supreme Court.
President @JoeBiden he has not ordered his supporters to fight like hell or march to the steps of SCOTUS.
— Mario Nicolais (@MarioNicolaiEsq) March 4, 2024
“I hope the court's cowardice today does not lead to bloodshed tomorrow,” said Mario Nicolais, a lawyer for the Colorado plaintiffs. to the newspaper 'The New York Times'after ensuring that their clients did not regret having filed the lawsuit.
A judicial interpretation different from that of the Supreme Court, which has made it possible for Trump, for the moment, to continue firmly towards the Republican nomination as a candidate for the Presidency.
Your next test will be in just a few hours with the celebration of Super Tuesday, the day with the most simultaneous primaries in the US.
With AP and local media
#primaries #Supreme #Court #rejects #Colorado #ruling #Trump39s #candidacy