In a huge victory for former President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court appears ready to strike down efforts to remove him from primary ballots due to claims he engaged in insurrection on January 6th. The justices are expected to issue their decision as soon as Monday, just one day before Super Tuesday contests in multiple states.
Signs point to the Supreme Court siding with Trump in the closely-watched case out of Colorado, which sought to invoke the 14th Amendment to ban him from the state’s primary ballot. During oral arguments last month, the justices expressed skepticism about whether states have the authority to unilaterally bar presidential candidates over disputed qualifications. Their impending ruling will likely limit that power, clearing the way for Trump to compete freely in GOP primaries across the country.
This is a massive victory for Trump against Democrats’ concerted legal moves to constrain his 2024 comeback bid. The Supreme Court decision should definitively halt liberal efforts to weaponize the January 6th riots against Trump’s political future. With his path to the Republican nomination now assured, Trump appears poised to continue dominating the GOP field while Democrats grapple with the consequences of their failed anti-Trump maneuvers. Far from spelling the end of Trump’s White House hopes, the Supreme Court ruling cements his frontrunner status heading into the crucial primary season.
Bolstered by the Supreme Court ruling safeguarding his spot on primary ballots, Trump wasted no time returning to the campaign trail to shore up support. On Saturday, three days before the critical Super Tuesday contests, the former president held a raucous rally in Richmond, Virginia aimed at consolidating voters ahead of the state’s Republican primary on Tuesday.
Trump told the energetic Richmond crowd they will “win big” in Tuesday’s pivotal multi-state contests, predicting Super Tuesday will cement his status as Republican nominee.
Trump’s upbeat Super Tuesday predictions come as he awaits the Supreme Court’s highly consequential decision on his ballot eligibility.
The case arose after the Colorado Secretary of State prevented Trump’s name from appearing on their state’s primary ballot, citing his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol as meeting the definition of insurrection.
Trump appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed the Secretary of State’s ruling in a decision citing Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as evidence of insurrection.
Trump then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the case earlier this month. The justices appeared skeptical of Colorado’s claims, questioning whether a single state has the authority to bar a candidate for federal office and whether Trump’s speech ahead of the Capitol riot clearly amounted to inciting insurrection. Their impending decision is expected to provide important clarity around interpreting the 14th Amendment and could have profound implications for Trump’s 2024 candidacy.
Beyond Colorado, election officials in other states have grappled with whether to invoke the 14th Amendment against Trump. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court rejected an effort to remove Trump from the primary ballot. But in Maine, a judge allowed a challenge to proceed based on the insurrection claims.
The issue also arose in Arizona, where the Secretary of State concluded there was insufficient evidence to find Trump engaged in rebellion. In Michigan, a voting rights group filed a lawsuit seeking to exclude Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment, a case dismissed by a judge who said it should be left to voters to decide.
In Illinois, a judge recently ordered election officials to remove Trump or suppress votes for him in their upcoming primary, also citing the insurrection clause.The Illinois Republican Party denounced the ruling, arguing that voters rather than the courts should decide which candidates appear on the ballot. Trump’s spokesperson also promised a swift appeal, calling the ruling unconstitutional.
By putting her ruling on hold, Judge Porter avoided immediately removing Trump from the Illinois ballot while acknowledging that the Supreme Court’s imminent decision could override her judgment. The state also allows time for an appeal within the Illinois court system. Porter’s ruling repeatedly cited the Colorado case’s findings that Trump’s long-term efforts to overturn the election results culminated in the violent attack on Congress and constituted disqualifying insurrection. But Trump’s lawyers argue his actions fell short of that standard. The pending appeals may provide more definitive answers on whether Trump’s electoral challenges and incendiary rhetoric crossed the line into insurrection. The Supreme Court’s imminent decision could determine whether that ban is enforceable.
Trump has adamantly denied he engaged in or incited insurrection on January 6th, dismissing the cases against him as partisan witch hunts. His lawyers have argued his rhetoric was protected political speech and that removing him from ballots would be undemocratic. Civil liberties groups have also raised First Amendment concerns around efforts to exclude candidates based on speech.
Congressional Democrats previously explored invoking Section 3 against Trump in a 2021 impeachment trial, though they ultimately did not cite insurrection as an impeachment article. The 14th Amendment provision, aimed at ex-Confederates after the Civil War, has rarely been invoked through history.
This situation clearly demonstrates the lengths to which Democrats are willing to go to avoid losing the 2024 election to former President Trump. The legal maneuvers in states like Colorado, Illinois and Maine to keep Trump off the ballot are an obvious partisan ploy to hinder his path back to the White House.
Trump’s legal team has made some compelling arguments against these efforts. They assert it should be up to voters to decide which candidates they want to choose from, without state governments arbitrarily constraining their options. This position aligns with basic principles of democracy and fair elections.
Furthermore, as Trump’s lawyers have pointed out, his rhetoric surrounding the January 6th Capitol riot is protected political speech under the First Amendment. While his words may have been irresponsible or even reckless, they likely did not clearly rise to the level of criminally inciting insurrection.
The Supreme Court justices seem to agree with these critiques. During oral arguments, they expressed skepticism about whether an individual state can reasonably judge a federal candidate’s qualifications and bar them from the ballot on dubious grounds. The Court will likely limit this power in its upcoming ruling.
Beyond these constitutional and democratic concerns, Trump also perhaps stands the best chance of resolving the bloody Ukraine-Russia war quickly. This would save American taxpayers billions of dollars and many Ukrainian lives.
Trump’s isolationist foreign policy approach could achieve peace where Biden’s aggressive posturing has failed.
Given all these dynamics, the Democrats’ anti-Trump ballot banning efforts seem poised to backfire. They expose the party as willing to manipulate the legal system for political gain instead of trusting voters to choose their own leaders. By undermining fair electoral processes, Democrats actually damage faith in democracy itself.
Come 2024, voters may resent these attempts to control their choices. That resentment could mobilize more support for Trump, sweeping him back into the Oval Office over Democrats’ strenuous objections. Their ploys to keep Trump off ballots might end up undercutting the party’s own electoral prospects.
With Trump the clear frontrunner for the 2024 GOP nomination, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment could determine whether these insurrection claims successfully derail his comeback bid. Their ruling is expected imminently and could fundamentally reshape the 2024 landscape.
