The Supreme Court’s decision focuses on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reverse a Colorado court ruling that barred former President Donald J. Trump from the state’s primary ballot turns on the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which contains a clause disqualifying people who have violated their oath of office from holding government positions in the state. the future.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 as part of the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. To address the problem of former Confederates holding positions of government power is third section disqualifies former government officials from holding office if they took an oath to support the Constitution but then betrayed it by participating in an insurrection.

According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, a criminal conviction was not seen as necessary: ​​federal prosecutors filed civil suits to depose officials who were former Confederates, and Congress refused to include certain members under the clause. Congress passed amnesty laws in 1872 and 1898, eliminating penalties for former Confederates.

The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election, culminating in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, made him an oath-breaking insurrectionist. It excluded him from the state’s primary ballot. Mr. Trump’s lawyers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously overturned the state decision.

All nine justices agreed that states can enforce Section 3 against holders and seekers of state offices, but that they do not have the authority to enforce this article against holders and seekers of national offices. The justices were concerned that different states might otherwise make different decisions about removing candidates from the ballot, resulting in a disruptive “patchwork” that would sever the bond the framers wanted between the federal government and the people of the United States as a whole.

However, the justices were divided on what to say about the means by which federal officials could enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and seekers. Five justices in the majority said it was necessary for Congress to enact legislation establishing the procedures to do so. The other four said it was not necessary to answer that question to resolve the case, and criticized their colleagues for going further and ruling out other possible mechanisms.

Other issues raised during the briefings and oral arguments did not appear to be material to the Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue. In particular, Mr. Trump’s legal team had argued that Section 3 did not apply to him, on the theory that the amendment’s phrase “officer of the United States” should be interpreted as covering only appointed officials and not elected presidents. None of the judges embraced this reasoning.