What the Colorado Oral Argument Missed
Often the outcome of a Supreme Court case is hard to predict from its oral argument. Not yesterday’s.
The justices’ questions in Trump v. Anderson made clear that the Court will rule—perhaps even unanimously—that no state can decide to disqualify Donald Trump from serving as president unless and until Congress enacts a statute granting that permission. Because Congress hasn’t done so, the Court, in all likelihood, will order Colorado and every other state to let Trump continue his reelection campaign.
One can understand why the justices would want to reach this result. As many of them observed in their questions, the presidency is a nationwide office; the idea that state legislatures, rather than Congress, would decide a candidate’s eligibility for the job seems incongruous. Several justices suggested that, without congressional involvement, a candidate might end up on the ballot in some states but not in others, resulting in chaos in November. A particular state’s decision—if it’s one of the swing states—could make the difference in the election.
The justices also noted that the disqualification provision at issue in this case—barring oath-breaking insurrectionists from holding office again—is part of the power of state legislatures, to protect the rights of the previously enslaved. The Fourteenth Amendment, moreover, explicitly gives Congress the power to enforce all of the amendment’s provisions, including its disqualification clause.
