About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (June 12, 2024)

handle is hein.crs/govepks0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Disqualification of a Candidate for the Presidency, Part I: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as It Applies to the Presidency Updated June 12, 2024 On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court in Trump v Anderson reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Anderson v. Griswold that former President Trump was ineligible to appear on the state's primary ballot due to his disqualification from holding future office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (Section 3). In a per curiam decision, all nine Justices agreed that responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a separate concurrence explaining her view that the Court should have gone no further than holding states lack power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the Court's decision that Section 3 is enforceable with respect to federal offices only if Congress prescribes by law a method for determining who is disqualified, although it is not clear whether the Court's opinion requires implementing legislation for Congress to directly enforce Section 3 or whether it could, for example decided that a presidential candidate was ineligible to hold office when it counted electoral votes. On December 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court became the first court to hold that former President Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot because he is constitutionally disqualified from holding the office of the President, and the court directed the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President's name from the state's 2024 presidential primary ballot. In a similar case, the secretary of state of Maine determined on December 28, 2023, that Mr. Trump is ineligible to appear on that state's ballot pursuant to Section 3 based on much of the same evidence reviewed in the Colorado case. After the Supreme Court's decision in Anderson, the Secretary withdrew the determination that the state could enforce Section 3 by keeping Mr. Trump's name off the ballot, but retained the determination that he had engaged in insurrection, a decision Mr. Trump is appealing on the basis of his view that she lacked jurisdiction to issue such a determination. Illinois determined in February 2024 that Mr. Trump was ineligible to appear on the presidential ballot, but the Court's ruling in Trump v. Anderson effectively invalidates that decision and effectively halts pending related litigation. Challengers alleged that Mr. Trump sought to impede the congressional certification ofthe 2020 electoral college vote on January 6, 2021, by, among other things, urging his supporters to travel to Washington, Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB11094 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most