• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Catholic Review

Catholic Review

Inspiring the Archdiocese of Baltimore

Menu
  • Home
  • News
        • Local News
        • World News
        • Vatican News
        • Obituaries
        • Featured Video
        • En Español
        • Sports News
        • Official Clergy Assignments
        • Schools News
  • Commentary
        • Contributors
          • Question Corner
          • George Weigel
          • Elizabeth Scalia
          • Michael R. Heinlein
          • Effie Caldarola
          • Guest Commentary
        • CR Columnists
          • Archbishop William E. Lori
          • Rita Buettner
          • Christopher Gunty
          • George Matysek Jr.
          • Mark Viviano
          • Father Joseph Breighner
          • Father Collin Poston
          • Robyn Barberry
          • Hanael Bianchi
          • Amen Columns
  • Entertainment
        • Events
        • Movie & Television Reviews
        • Arts & Culture
        • Books
        • Recipes
  • About Us
        • Contact Us
        • Our History
        • Meet Our Staff
        • Photos to own
        • Books/CDs/Prayer Cards
        • CR Media platforms
        • Electronic Edition
  • Advertising
  • Shop
        • Purchase Photos
        • Books/CDs/Prayer Cards
        • Magazine Subscriptions
        • Archdiocesan Directory
  • CR Radio
        • CR Radio
        • Protagonistas de Fe
  • News Tips
  • Subscribe
In this undated file photo, James Earle Fraser's statue "The Authority of Law" sits at the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (OSV News photo/Mark Thomas, Pixabay)

Supreme Court’s Trump ballot ruling shows agreement amid differences over scope, prof says

March 6, 2024
By Kate Scanlon
OSV News
Filed Under: 2024 Election, Feature, News, World News

Share
Share on Facebook
Share
Share this
Pin
Pin this
Share
Share on LinkedIn

WASHINGTON (OSV News) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled March 4 that the 14th Amendment does not permit Colorado to bar former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot, as doing so would be a matter for Congress, not the states. While the justices offered some differences of opinion on the scope of the overall ruling, their decision was unanimous.

Bob Spagnola, a professor of business and leadership at Jesuit-run Regis University in Denver, told OSV News the 9-0 ruling was “pretty straightforward,” given the court’s ideological makeup, even as it ultimately held that barring someone from office over insurrection would take an act of Congress.

The case before the high court stemmed from the Colorado Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision Dec. 19 that Trump should be “disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment” over his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. That ruling set up the review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Civil War-era provision in question was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government following their rebellion against the United States.

But in its March 4 ruling, the high court found “this case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision overturned a district court judge’s ruling that found Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Capitol riot, when supporters of the then-president attempted to thwart the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. But the lower court judge had found Trump could not be barred from the ballot, because it was unclear whether the 14th Amendment provision included the presidency.

The U.S. Supreme Court neither ruled on that question nor whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection, Spagnola noted.

“Basically what they’re saying is Colorado, you can’t do this on your own. It’s got to be an act of Congress in a federal election,” he said.

But the ruling left leeway for individual states to ban insurrectionists from their ballots in state races.

Although the court’s ruling was unanimous, there was some difference of opinion on its scope.

The court’s perceived liberal wing — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — argued the court’s ruling went further than necessary to resolve the basic question of the case.

“Although only an individual state’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so,” they wrote. “In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is perceived as part of the court’s conservative wing, also expressed some agreement with her liberal colleagues and her reservations about the ruling as exceeding its necessary scope. However, she cautioned the controversial election-year case was not the time to “amplify disagreement.”

“This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question of whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced,” Barrett wrote.

Barrett added, “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.”

Spagnola said, “I think they were concerned that in future arguments, that it’s possible that all insurrectionists might be looking to use this decision in some way to argue that they can’t be prevented from holding any kind of federal office.”

“I think that’s what they were afraid of,” he said. “And I think that’s where they were saying, ‘Hey, you kind of went too far. You said more than you needed to maybe on that,’ and I think that was their concern.”

Barrett’s comments, he said, sought to highlight that despite disagreement about scope, there was agreement on the ruling.

“The important thing is unanimity,” he said of her opinion. “As you would expect with nine people, we don’t necessarily necessarily agree with the way you approach it, but we agree with your decision.”

The Supreme Court Feb. 28 said it would take up another major case concerning Trump, involving arguments over whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Trump and his lawyers have argued that he is immune from being criminally prosecuted for actions he took while still in office, an argument questioned by constitutional scholars.

Read More 2024 Election

Faithful and furry: People and pets await next pope

Trump signs executive order directing government to only recognize two biological sexes

‘We go to cry with them,’ says nun as migrants lament Trump immigration orders

Trump’s birthright citizenship order challenged in lawsuit

Trump’s Day 1 includes executive orders on birthright citizenship, climate

Wisdom, strength, humility focus of Inauguration Day prayers for President Trump

Copyright © 2024 OSV News

Print Print

Share
Share on Facebook
Share
Share this
Pin
Pin this
Share
Share on LinkedIn

Primary Sidebar

Kate Scanlon

Click here to view all posts from this author

For the latest news delivered twice a week via email or text message, sign up to receive our free enewsletter.

| MOST POPULAR |

  • 3 North Americans named to Vatican dicasteries for ecumenism, interreligious dialogue

  • Archbishop Lori announces clergy appointments, including pastor and associate pastors

  • St. Mary’s purchases former Annapolis Area Christian School

  • St. Clement Mary Hofbauer adapts to times, cultures as it celebrates 100th anniversary

  • Augustinian prior opens up about papal vacation, first encyclical, appointments and tennis

| Latest Local News |

Archbishop Lori announces clergy appointments, including pastor and associate pastors

DUAL ENROLLMENT

Double the learning: Dual enrollment provides college credit to high school students

St. Mary’s purchases former Annapolis Area Christian School

Radio Interview: Exploring the Nicene Creed – Part Two

St. Clement Mary Hofbauer adapts to times, cultures as it celebrates 100th anniversary

| Latest World News |

Judge blocks Trump birthright citizenship order as part of class action lawsuit

Ukraine religious leaders issue ‘desperate cry’ to world to end Russia’s war

care of creation

Pope Leo wears Chicago-made vestments to July 9 ‘care of creation’ Mass

sorry baby

Movie Review: Sorry, Baby

ICE

ICE deports Iowa parishioner to Guatemala homeland as supporters pray for his release

| Catholic Review Radio |

CatholicReview · Catholic Review Radio

Footer

Our Vision

Real Life. Real Faith. 

Catholic Review Media communicates the Gospel and its impact on people’s lives in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and beyond.

Our Mission

Catholic Review Media provides intergenerational communications that inform, teach, inspire and engage Catholics and all of good will in the mission of Christ through diverse forms of media.

Contact

Catholic Review
320 Cathedral Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
443-524-3150
mail@CatholicReview.org

 

Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent

  • Judge blocks Trump birthright citizenship order as part of class action lawsuit
  • Ukraine religious leaders issue ‘desperate cry’ to world to end Russia’s war
  • Pope Leo wears Chicago-made vestments to July 9 ‘care of creation’ Mass
  • Movie Review: Sorry, Baby
  • ICE deports Iowa parishioner to Guatemala homeland as supporters pray for his release
  • Come away and rest awhile
  • French woman hopes sharing mystical encounter with Minnesota Benedictine helps sainthood cause
  • Pope: Vatican still ready to host peace talks between Russia, Ukraine
  • Archbishop Lori announces clergy appointments, including pastor and associate pastors

Search

Membership

Catholic Media Assocation

Maryland-Delaware-DC Press Association

The Associated Church Press

© 2025 CATHOLIC REVIEW MEDIA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

en Englishes Spanish
en en