Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Trump v. Anderson

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Trump v. Anderson
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: February 8, 2024
Decided: March 4, 2024
Outcome
reversed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Per curiam
Concurring
Amy Coney Barrett • Sonia Sotomayor • Ketanji Brown Jackson • Elena Kagan

Trump v. Anderson is a case argued that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 4, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the court on February 8, 2024.

In a unanimous Per curiam opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court, holding that since the Constitution gives Congress (and not the states) the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court should not have ordered former President Donald Trump to be excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in part and concurred in the judgment.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision barring former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?"[2]
  • The outcome: In a 9-0 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 4, 2024: The court reversed the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court.
    • February 8, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • January 5, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • January 3, 2024: former President Donald Trump appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • December 19, 2023: The Colorado Supreme Court rules that former President Donald Trump is not qualified to appear on the state’s presidential primary ballot.


    Background

    On November 7, 2020, Joe Biden (D), was elected as the forty-sixth President of the United States. On January 6, 2021, as Congress convened to certify the Electoral College votes, former President Donald Trump held a rally in which he stated, “‘[w]e won in a landslide’ and ‘we will never concede.’”[3] He also told his supporters to “‘confront this egregious assault on our democracy’; ‘walk down to the Capitol . . . [and] show strength.’”[3] On January 7, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence certified the electoral votes, confirming Biden as the president-elect of the United States.[3]

    President Trump was seeking the Colorado Republican Party’s presidential nomination for the 2024 election. A group of Colorado electors of Republican and unaffiliated voters filed a petition in the Denver District Court that challenged the Colorado Secretary of State’s authority to list Trump as a 2024 Republican primary presidential candidate.[4] They argued that, based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump was disqualified because he violated his presidential oath to protect the Constitution by participating in the January 6 rally.[3]

    The district court denied the electors' petition, concluding that although Trump engaged in insurrection as defined in Section Three, Section Three does not apply to the president.[3] The electors appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court which reversed the district court’s decision in part. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that Section Three disqualifies Trump from holding the presidential office, therefore it would be illegal under Colorado law to include him on the ballot.[4]


    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?

    [5]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous Per curiam opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court, holding that since the Constitution gives Congress (and not the states) the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court should not have ordered former President Donald Trump to be excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion which was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.[1] A per curiam decision is issued collectively by the court. The authorship is not indicated. Click here for more information.

    Opinion

    In its opinion, the court wrote:[1]

    “

    Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment ‘expand[ed] federal power at the expense of state autonomy’ and thus ‘fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution.’ Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 59 (1996); see also Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 345 (1880). Section 1 of the Amendment, for instance, bars the States from ‘depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’ or ‘deny[ing] to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.’ And Section 5 confers on Congress ‘power to enforce’ those prohibitions, along with the other provisions of the Amendment, ‘by appropriate legislation.’
    Section 3 of the Amendment likewise restricts state autonomy, but through different means. It was designed to help ensure an enduring Union by preventing former Confederates from returning to power in the aftermath of the Civil War. See, e.g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2544 (1866) (statement of Rep. Stevens, warning that without appropriate constitutional reforms ‘yelling secessionists and hissing copperheads’ would take seats in the House); id., at 2768 (statement of Sen. Howard, lamenting prospect of a ‘State Legislature . . . made up entirely of disloyal elements’ absent a disqualification provision). Section 3 aimed to prevent such a resurgence by barring from office ‘those who, having once taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, afterward went into rebellion against the Government of the United States.’ Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., 626 (1869) (statement of Sen. Trumbull). [5]

    		”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “

    The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, 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. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an ‘insurrection [and] rebellion’ to defend slavery. §3. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.[5] ”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, "Donald J. Trump, petitioner V. Norma Anderson, Et Al. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado," accessed March 4, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-719 TRUMP V. ANDERSON, Questions presented'," accessed January 5, 2024
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "DONALD J. TRUMP v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL.," accessed January 16, 2024
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Oyez, "Trump v. Anderson," accessed February 5, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued February 8, 2024
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued February 8, 2024
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trump_v._Anderson&oldid=9417829"