To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The 9-0 ruling which reverses a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, warned one pro-democracy watchdog, "undermines the integrity of our Constitution and emboldens those seeking to disrupt and dismantle our democratic systems."
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump a resounding legal victory on Monday by rejecting a push by Colorado voters to have him disqualified from the state's ballot under a clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that the former president was guilty of insurrection due to his actions leading up to and on January 6, 2021.
Though the Colorado Supreme Court last year ruled in favor of the argument to exclude Trump in this year's election, Monday's 9-0 ruling said, "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse."
The decision by the nation's highest court was unanimous, though Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—the three remaining liberals on the Court—signed a concurring opinion in the judgment, indicating a varied reason for supporting the underlying decision. In addition to Colorado, officials in Maine and Illinois have moved to remove Trump from the ballot.
"The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution's built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."
Supporters of the effort to disqualify Trump from seeking public office due to his insurrectionary words and deeds following his loss in the 2020 election, which he refused to accept, condemned Monday's ruling.
"This decision is disgraceful," said Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech For People (FSFP), which pioneered the first litigation under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and co-led the successful Illinois challenge. "The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution's built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."
Legal experts said the ruling did not hinge on the question of whether or not Trump was, in fact, guilty of insurrection but only that Colorado was not qualified to invoke the 14th Amendment.
"Yes, the Supreme Court ruled for Trump based on only Congress having the power to enforce the 14th amendment," said Norm Eisen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and an outspoken Trump critic. "But just as important as what they did is what they didn't do. They did not expressly challenge that he was an insurrectionist—and the concurrence emphasizes that finding."
Nonetheless, Common Cause called the ruling a "major setback for democracy" that sets a worrying precedent.
"This decision undermines the integrity of our Constitution and emboldens those seeking to disrupt and dismantle our democratic systems. For over 200 years, all but one of our leaders have abided by the Constitution and practiced the peaceful transfer of power," said Kathay Feng, the group's vice president of programs.
"This ruling reverses the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, and with it, green lights future presidents to intimidate, threaten, and attack Congress into obedience," Feng added. "Our Constitution depends on checks and balances. Removing states as a check on tyrannical presidents threatens the future of our democracy."
In its statement, FSFP similarly said the ruling was "dangerous" as it "encourages Trump–and those who follow his example–to engage in more insurrections and disregard more broadly the Constitution."
"As one Senator explained in 1866 when advocating for Section 3, 'the man who has once violated his oath will be more liable to violate his fealty to the Government in the future,'" the group noted. "The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment learned this lesson in blood, and gave us Section 3 to prevent a repeat. With today's ruling, the Supreme Court has utterly failed in its duty to uphold this constitutional mandate at this critical moment in history."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump a resounding legal victory on Monday by rejecting a push by Colorado voters to have him disqualified from the state's ballot under a clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that the former president was guilty of insurrection due to his actions leading up to and on January 6, 2021.
Though the Colorado Supreme Court last year ruled in favor of the argument to exclude Trump in this year's election, Monday's 9-0 ruling said, "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse."
The decision by the nation's highest court was unanimous, though Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—the three remaining liberals on the Court—signed a concurring opinion in the judgment, indicating a varied reason for supporting the underlying decision. In addition to Colorado, officials in Maine and Illinois have moved to remove Trump from the ballot.
"The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution's built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."
Supporters of the effort to disqualify Trump from seeking public office due to his insurrectionary words and deeds following his loss in the 2020 election, which he refused to accept, condemned Monday's ruling.
"This decision is disgraceful," said Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech For People (FSFP), which pioneered the first litigation under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and co-led the successful Illinois challenge. "The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution's built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."
Legal experts said the ruling did not hinge on the question of whether or not Trump was, in fact, guilty of insurrection but only that Colorado was not qualified to invoke the 14th Amendment.
"Yes, the Supreme Court ruled for Trump based on only Congress having the power to enforce the 14th amendment," said Norm Eisen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and an outspoken Trump critic. "But just as important as what they did is what they didn't do. They did not expressly challenge that he was an insurrectionist—and the concurrence emphasizes that finding."
Nonetheless, Common Cause called the ruling a "major setback for democracy" that sets a worrying precedent.
"This decision undermines the integrity of our Constitution and emboldens those seeking to disrupt and dismantle our democratic systems. For over 200 years, all but one of our leaders have abided by the Constitution and practiced the peaceful transfer of power," said Kathay Feng, the group's vice president of programs.
"This ruling reverses the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, and with it, green lights future presidents to intimidate, threaten, and attack Congress into obedience," Feng added. "Our Constitution depends on checks and balances. Removing states as a check on tyrannical presidents threatens the future of our democracy."
In its statement, FSFP similarly said the ruling was "dangerous" as it "encourages Trump–and those who follow his example–to engage in more insurrections and disregard more broadly the Constitution."
"As one Senator explained in 1866 when advocating for Section 3, 'the man who has once violated his oath will be more liable to violate his fealty to the Government in the future,'" the group noted. "The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment learned this lesson in blood, and gave us Section 3 to prevent a repeat. With today's ruling, the Supreme Court has utterly failed in its duty to uphold this constitutional mandate at this critical moment in history."
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump a resounding legal victory on Monday by rejecting a push by Colorado voters to have him disqualified from the state's ballot under a clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that the former president was guilty of insurrection due to his actions leading up to and on January 6, 2021.
Though the Colorado Supreme Court last year ruled in favor of the argument to exclude Trump in this year's election, Monday's 9-0 ruling said, "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse."
The decision by the nation's highest court was unanimous, though Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—the three remaining liberals on the Court—signed a concurring opinion in the judgment, indicating a varied reason for supporting the underlying decision. In addition to Colorado, officials in Maine and Illinois have moved to remove Trump from the ballot.
"The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution's built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."
Supporters of the effort to disqualify Trump from seeking public office due to his insurrectionary words and deeds following his loss in the 2020 election, which he refused to accept, condemned Monday's ruling.
"This decision is disgraceful," said Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech For People (FSFP), which pioneered the first litigation under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and co-led the successful Illinois challenge. "The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution's built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."
Legal experts said the ruling did not hinge on the question of whether or not Trump was, in fact, guilty of insurrection but only that Colorado was not qualified to invoke the 14th Amendment.
"Yes, the Supreme Court ruled for Trump based on only Congress having the power to enforce the 14th amendment," said Norm Eisen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and an outspoken Trump critic. "But just as important as what they did is what they didn't do. They did not expressly challenge that he was an insurrectionist—and the concurrence emphasizes that finding."
Nonetheless, Common Cause called the ruling a "major setback for democracy" that sets a worrying precedent.
"This decision undermines the integrity of our Constitution and emboldens those seeking to disrupt and dismantle our democratic systems. For over 200 years, all but one of our leaders have abided by the Constitution and practiced the peaceful transfer of power," said Kathay Feng, the group's vice president of programs.
"This ruling reverses the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, and with it, green lights future presidents to intimidate, threaten, and attack Congress into obedience," Feng added. "Our Constitution depends on checks and balances. Removing states as a check on tyrannical presidents threatens the future of our democracy."
In its statement, FSFP similarly said the ruling was "dangerous" as it "encourages Trump–and those who follow his example–to engage in more insurrections and disregard more broadly the Constitution."
"As one Senator explained in 1866 when advocating for Section 3, 'the man who has once violated his oath will be more liable to violate his fealty to the Government in the future,'" the group noted. "The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment learned this lesson in blood, and gave us Section 3 to prevent a repeat. With today's ruling, the Supreme Court has utterly failed in its duty to uphold this constitutional mandate at this critical moment in history."
