Donald J. Trump Vs Norma Anderson : the USA Supreme Court sets aside debarment of Former President Trump from primary ballot
The US Supreme Court has granted a big relief to the Former President Trump by setting aside Colorado Supreme Court judgment debarring him from primary ballot and holding that States do not have power to disqualify federal officeholders.
Facts of the Case
Four Republican and two other voters had filed petition before the Colorado State Court seeking disqualification of Mr. Trump from primary ballot on the ground that he has disrupted peaceful transfer of power by intentionally inciting and organizing crowd that breached the capitol as Congress met to certify the election results.
The Petitioners relied on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment which says that a person will not be a senator or representative in congress or elector of president and vice president or hold civil or military office under USA who previously taken an oath as member of congress or and officer of the United States or as a member of the State Legislature or an officer of the United States has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or given aid or comfort to enemies.
The District Court found that Mr. Trump has engaged in insurrection but Section 3 does not apply because Presidency is not covered under “office” or President is not “officer” of the United States.
Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the District Court and held that “Presidency” is covered under term “office” and President is covered under “officer of the United States” and barred Mr. Trump’s inclusion in primary ballot.
President challenged the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state offices but states do not have power under constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. The Constitution does not authorize States to remove sitting federal officeholders who may be violating Section 3. States even lack power to issue writ of mandamus against federal officials or to grant habeus corpus relief. The Supreme Court held that States do not have even power to enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office.
The Supreme Court observed that 14th Amendment imposes significant limitations on the State’s authority on the other hand grants new power to the Congress to enforce provisions of the amendment against the States.
The Supreme Court noted that text of Section 3 reinforces these conclusion as it gives power exclusively to Congress to remove any disability under Section 3 by two-third majority.
The Supreme Court also noted that there is lack of historical precedents showing use of power by States under Section 3 to disqualify federal officeholders or candidates. This also shows that States lacked enforcement power under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court also noted that enforcement by states of Section 3 raise heightened concerns. State by State enforcement of Section 3 is against the principle that President represents all voters in nation. Procedure of each State is different and same candidate will be declared eligible in some states and ineligible in some states. State enforcement of Section 3 severs link between National Government and people of United States as voters can be disqualified under Section 3 by States impacting outcome of presidential elections.
_________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.
