US Supreme Court rules Donald Trump can remain on Colorado ballot

Access the Editor’s Digest at no cost

Every week, Roula Khalaf, who is the Editor of the FT, picks out her preferred articles and shares them in a newsletter.

The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that Donald Trump can continue to be on the presidential primary ballot in Colorado. This decision is a significant legal victory for the former president, who is seeking another term in the White House.

On Monday, a decision was made unanimously that overturned the previous ruling from Colorado's top court. The previous ruling said the former president was not eligible to be in office as he had taken steps to invalidate the results of the 2020 election.

The decision was made one day prior to Super Tuesday, when 15 states and one territory will be casting their ballots in the Republican presidential primaries, among which is Colorado. Trump is evidently in the lead for his party, indicating that this year's White House campaign may entail a repeat battle between him and President Joe Biden.

The court stated that states have the ability to prohibit people from holding or competing for state positions. Nonetheless, they don't possess the right according to the US constitution to enforce the legal measure that Colorado used to prevent Trump from being eligible "specifically for governmental positions, including the presidency," as mentioned by the judges in an unattributed verdict.

Trump declared a massive victory for the United States in a social media message after the decision was released, stating, "HUGE SUCCESS FOR AMERICA!!!"

He praised the decision while speaking from his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach, Florida. According to Trump, a candidate cannot be removed from a race by a court. This should be left to the voters, who can swiftly eliminate a candidate. The Supreme Court was wise to recognize this fact, Trump noted whilst speaking with the press.

A non-profit legal watchdog called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which supported voters who opposed Trump in lower Colorado courts, expressed disappointment on Monday, stating that the Supreme Court did not live up to expectations.

This choice goes against a plan of action endorsed by activists and voters in some states to remove Trump from their ballots due to his supposed defiance of the third section of the 14th amendment. This amendment, created during the period of the Civil War, forbids officers who have taken part in rebellion or insurrection from serving in office. Trump had been disallowed from running in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois for this reason.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declared that the constitution does not grant states any authority to apply section three against federal candidates and officeholders.

This situation was the initial instance where the supreme court examined how a lawful concept initially intended to prevent Confederates from assuming a post applied to the capability of contemporary presidential aspirants. Prior to enforcing section three, Congress had to enact legislation, as stated by the court.

However, four out of the nine justices expressed that they supported the decision, but believed that the ruling went beyond the scope of the Colorado case. They argued that the case didn't address how section three should be enforced at the federal level.

In a collective viewpoint, the trio of progressive judges - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson - expressed: "These thoughts are not backed up enough and given without cause."

They stated that the majority is trying to protect all the people accused of participating in the insurrection from potential future consequences regarding their ability to hold federal positions. They also mentioned that in a case that requires caution and careful consideration, the majority is not following that path.

The topic was also discussed by Amy Coney Barrett, who is included in the six conservatives in the court and one of the three justices nominated by Trump. She expressed her view separately by saying that addressing whether federal legislation is the only way to enforce section three was not necessary for this particular case.

During a particularly turbulent presidential election, the court has made a decision on a topic that caused much political controversy. Coney Barrett stated that while there were differences in opinions among the justices, it is more important to focus on the fact that they all ultimately agreed on the outcome of the case. This is the message that Americans should take away from this decision.

A bunch of voters from Colorado kicked off the case. They reckon Trump was all in on the uprising on January 6, 2021. That's when a bunch of his backers barged into the Capitol to try and put a stop to Biden being named winner of the presidential election. So, the top court in the state looked into it and, by a narrow margin, thought Trump was guilty as charged. Therefore, they barred him from running on their primary ballot. Trump wasn't happy, so he hauled the case all the way to the US Supreme Court. He felt the lower court had got it all wrong.

This case that was brought to the Supreme Court was very well-known, just like when there was a dispute over the election between Bush and Gore in 2000. The outcome of that decision was controversial because it prevented a recount in Florida and ultimately led to George W. Bush becoming the President.

The Colorado lawsuit has placed the court in a position where it is dealing with politically delicate matters and has been getting flak for being biased by making judgments that conform to particular political beliefs.

The recent decision from the supreme court involves Trump's appeal over whether his position as president protects him from prosecution over offenses committed while serving his term. The plea pertains to a federal accusation that Trump tried to invalidate the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The trial for this issue is scheduled for the week of April 22.

On Monday, Donald Trump made a claim that he deserves complete protection from legal action.

According to him, without complete protection from prosecution, a president will lack the capability to lead due to fear of consequences for their actions, whether just or unjust.

"They need to make choices without any fear of being targeted or threatened once their term is finished."