"Congress: Do Your Job"
SCOTUS Puts the Insurrection Disqualification Ball in Congress' Court
The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Anderson is a landmark in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, particularly its Section 3, which pertains to disqualifying individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office.
The unanimous decision asserts that states do not possess the authority to enforce this disqualification for federal candidates, emphasizing the role of Congress in such enforcement. This delineation between state and federal powers addresses concerns about the potential chaos of divergent state actions, which could lead to a fragmented and inconsistent electoral landscape across the nation. The ruling articulates that allowing states this power could disrupt the electoral process, potentially nullifying the votes of millions and altering election outcomes.
Despite the unanimity in the judgment that states cannot disqualify federal candidates based on allegations of insurrection, the Court did not delve into the question of whether Donald Trump actually engaged in insurrection. This lack of discussion leaves the issue unresolved, neither affirming nor denying Trump's involvement in insurrectionist activities.
While the constitutional provisions grant states the authority to determine the manner of selecting electors, the Supreme Court's decision aligns with the precedent established in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton1, where it was held that states cannot modify the qualifications for federal office as set forth in the Constitution.
In the U.S. Term Limits decision, the Court reasoned that allowing individual states to impose their own qualifications for congressional office would lead to a patchwork of varying requirements, undermining the uniformity intended by the framers of the Constitution. Similarly, in Trump v. Anderson, the Court held that states lack the authority to enforce the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause for federal candidates, emphasizing that such enforcement must be left to Congress to preserve the uniform application of constitutional standards across all states.
This approach prevents a fragmented electoral landscape, ensuring that the qualifications for federal office remain consistent and are not subject to the discretionary powers of individual states.
The decision prompted a nuanced reaction from the justices, with four expressing concerns about the scope of the ruling. While agreeing that states lack the authority to disqualify candidates on these grounds, they questioned the necessity of declaring Congressional action as the sole method for enforcing Section 3.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, originally designed to prevent former Confederates from holding public office post-Civil War, stipulates that individuals who have taken an oath to support the Constitution and then engage in insurrection or rebellion are ineligible for office. The legal debate centered on whether this provision applied to Trump, based on his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett notably remarked on the improbability of state-level decision-making in this context, emphasizing the national scope of the question at hand. Similarly, Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan highlighted the challenges of differing state court decisions and the national implications of a single state's ruling on a presidential candidate's eligibility.
The Court's deliberation also ventured into whether Section 3 operates automatically or requires explicit Congressional action to enforce disqualifications. Trump's team argued for the latter, invoking historical precedents and legislative history to assert that without active Congressional enforcement, the clause could not be self-executing. This stance was challenged by the voters' representation, which argued for a broader, automatic application of Section 3 to ensure accountability and uphold the constitutional oath.
The justices' apprehension regarding state enforcement of the 14th Amendment's Section 3 reflects a broader concern about the potential for disparate state actions to fragment the national electoral process. During oral arguments, scenarios were posited where states could, under the guise of enforcing this section, seek to disqualify candidates based on varied interpretations of "engaging in insurrection" or "providing aid and comfort" to enemies of the United States.
A hypothetical example: a group of conservative states generating a cause of action to remove a President Biden from their ballots, citing a failure to secure the border as "providing aid and comfort" to drug cartels, thereby harming national security.
The Court's decision invokes Section 5 of the 14th Amendment2, placing the onus on Congress to address and enforce the disqualification provisions under Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. The Court elucidated, "the text of the Fourteenth Amendment on its face does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5".
This concern underscores the justices' wariness of a piecemeal approach to constitutional enforcement, which could lead to a patchwork of eligibility criteria across states, undermining the uniformity and predictability essential to the integrity of federal elections. The ruling emphasizes the need for a consistent national standard in the application of constitutional provisions to federal candidates, reaffirming Congress's role in defining and enforcing these standards to prevent such fragmented and potentially partisan interpretations.
"Because the Constitution makes Congress rather than the States responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse".
Ultimately, the Supreme Court's ruling reiterates the constitutional balance between state authority and federal oversight in electoral matters, reaffirming that questions of federal candidacy, particularly those as significant as insurrection, demand a uniform, national approach.
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Anderson, by underscoring the exclusive role of Congress in enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, exemplifies an emerging judicial philosophy that I believe the Court is embracing;
"Congress: do your job."
Rather than rely on the judiciary to create solutions to politically charged and controversial questions, the Court is seeking to preserve the separation of powers by urging Congress to undertake its constitutional responsibilities proactively. The Court's reluctance to extend state powers in matters of federal electoral eligibility, particularly in politically sensitive contexts, signals a preference for legislative clarification and action over judicial intervention.
In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress that are additional to those specified in the Constitution. This decision is directly relevant to the case of Trump v. Anderson, where the Court held that states do not have the authority to disqualify federal candidates based on allegations of insurrection, emphasizing the exclusive role of Congress in enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." This section grants Congress the authority to enact laws to implement the rights and restrictions outlined in the 14th Amendment. In the context of the Trump v. Anderson decision, Section 5 is pivotal as the Supreme Court clarified that it is Congress, not the states, that holds the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which concerns the disqualification of individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding office.