SCOTUS Has Spoken, And It's GREAT News For Trump

The Court further clarified that this ruling is applicable to any state contemplating a similar action, thereby ensuring that Trump cannot be removed from the ballot in any state.

Colorado had previously ruled that Trump was ineligible to run for office, citing the "insurrection" clause of the 14th Amendment, section 3, as their justification. This decision prompted other states to follow suit, declaring that Trump would not be allowed to stand for office within their jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court, however, countered this by stating, "if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring candidates from running in the first place, Congress would be forced to exercise its disability removal power before voting begins if it wished for its decision to have any effect on the current election cycle." The Court further argued that it is unlikely that the Constitution would have granted states the power to impose such a burden on congressional authority with respect to candidates for federal office.

 WATCH: SPEAKER JOHNSON CALLS ON COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT TO RESIGN

The Court also noted that the petitioners representing Colorado failed to identify any "tradition of state enforcement of section 3 against federal officeholders or candidates in the years following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment."

 WATCH GREAT ANALYSIS: THE ABSURDITY OF ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTS

March 05, 2024

The Court expressed concern over the potential implications of allowing a ruling like Colorado's to stand. They noted that "conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations."

 A CRYING SHAME: PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTS FORCE USC TO CANCEL PRIMARY GRADUATION EVENT

The Court further elaborated on the potential inconsistencies, stating, "Certain evidence (like the congressional Report on which the lower courts relied here) might be admissible in some States but inadmissible hearsay in others. Disqualification might be possible only through criminal prosecution, as opposed to expedited civil proceedings, in particular States."

 AMERICA'S BIRTHRATE CONTINUES TO PLUMMET - ARE MILLENNIALS TRADING DIAPERS FOR DEGREES?

The Court warned of the potential chaos that could ensue from such a "patchwork" of state enforcement, which could "sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States."

 REPUBLICAN SENATORS EXPOSE DARK SIDE OF 'FOOD DELIVERY' ECONOMICS

The Court concluded by stating, "For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States." As such, the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court was deemed untenable.

 ARE THERE MORE? 'GILGO BEACH' MURDERS CASE EXPANDS WITH NEW SEARCH

The Court's unanimous decision was emphasized with the statement, "All nine Members of the Court agree with that result." The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court was subsequently reversed.

The Supreme Court had heard oral arguments in the case earlier in February, taking it on an emergency basis. During the hearing, the Court seemed inclined towards the conclusion that states do not have the right to unilaterally remove candidates, thereby denying their citizens the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

This ruling will have significant implications for states like Illinois and Maine, which had attempted to implement similar measures. They will now find themselves unable to execute such actions.