The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision Monday invalidating attempts to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot was the justices’ most direct intervention in a presidential election in more than two decades and marked the first time ever that they weighed in on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
In short, the court delivered a technical answer to a historic and politically explosive question unanswered by the text of the Constitution: Who gets to decide when a candidate, who previously took an oath, has “engaged in insurrection” and is therefore disqualified from office in the future?
A majority of justices agreed that only Congress has the power to make that determination and enforce the Amendment — not individual states. “The patchwork that would likely result from state enforcement would sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the national government and the people of the U.S. as a whole,” they wrote.
U.S. Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan pose for their group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters
Trump notched a significant win, and, as expected, will remain on the ballot in all 50 states. But he was not exonerated in the divisive and still ongoing legal and political debate over his conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 election that led up to the violent events of Jan. 6, 2021. The court left the substance of those major underlying questions untouched.
Did Trump’s efforts to overturn results of the 2020 election amount to “engaging in insurrection”? Did the former president help incite the deadly riot that consumed the U.S. Capitol? Could his conduct have reasonably been considered “obstruction of an official proceeding” in Congress? And, at the very least, can he be charged and put on trial for any of those alleged actions he took as president?
The justices in their ruling Monday did not directly or indirectly address the merits of allegations that Trump is unfit for office because he tried to subvert the will of voters in order to remain in power. Those questions remain active and unresolved by the high court.
Donald Trump speaks at a “Get Out the Vote” Rally in Conway, South Carolina, on February 10, 2024.
Julia Nikhinson/AFP via Getty Images
Next month, the court will get a second chance to wade in. The justices will take up Trump’s appeal of a unanimous appeals court ruling rejecting his claims of absolute presidential immunity for his conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The outcome could decide if and how soon he could face a criminal trial.
The high court is also set to decide whether one of the four charges Trump faces in that case – “Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding” – is valid and a proper reading of federal law as applied to dozens of criminal defendants involved with the Jan. 6 riot.
The cases provide an opportunity for the court to leave its mark on history and offer some degree of commentary on its view of the former president’s behavior, which many Americans have viewed as a threat to democracy. But there are also numerous ways for the justices to resolve both cases – again – avoiding any comment on the propriety or legality of Trump’s conduct.
In her concurring opinion Monday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed to the bench late in his term, suggested there may be a core cohort of justices who may well want to remain above the fray.
“In my judgment,” she wrote, “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
The United States Supreme Court is set to make a crucial decision regarding potential charges against former President Donald Trump. Despite being acquitted in his second impeachment trial earlier this year, Trump still faces a number of legal challenges, including investigations into his business dealings and possible obstruction of justice.
The Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not to hear cases involving Trump’s tax returns and financial records. The cases have been making their way through the lower courts for some time now, with Trump’s legal team fighting tooth and nail to keep the documents out of the hands of prosecutors.
The crux of the issue lies in whether or not Trump can be held accountable for any potential wrongdoing while he was in office. The former president has long maintained that he is immune from prosecution as a sitting president, but now that he is out of office, that argument no longer holds water.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear these cases does not necessarily mean that Trump will be charged with any crimes. However, it does signal that the highest court in the land believes that there are legitimate legal questions that need to be addressed.
In the meantime, Trump’s supporters continue to stand by him, arguing that he has been unfairly targeted by political opponents. On the other hand, his detractors argue that no one, not even a former president, should be above the law.
Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision, one thing is clear: Trump’s legal troubles are far from over. The American people will be watching closely as the court deliberates on this important issue, and whatever decision is reached will have far-reaching implications for the future of our democracy.
