The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states could bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

As always, you can read the full ruling here.

  • frezik
    23·
    10 months ago

    It’s a 9-0 decision on the basis of the fact that states can’t kick someone off the federal ballot. Enforcement against federal offices have to come elsewhere.

    Barrett makes a concurring opinion about how great it is that the Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision on this.

    Sotomayor, Kagen, and Jackson issue a concurring opinion of substance: that the majority opinion shuts the door to avenues of enforcement at the federal level besides Congress, and that’s a problem.

  • Dem BosainEnglish
    141·
    10 months ago

    All states currently have their own rules regarding who can be on a presidential ballot. Did SC just give that power to Congress?

    • Type 1 [Missouri]OPM
      14·
      10 months ago

      For all intents and purposes, I believe so. But one of the points that actually got a laugh in the oral arguments was how divided (ineffective) the Congress is.

  • Recreational PlacebosEnglish
    7·
    10 months ago

    Well, as one judge said to the other, ‘Be just and if you can’t be just be arbitrary.’

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    32·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

    The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election results, including his exhortation that his supporters should march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to formalize Joe Biden’s win.

    The ruling warned of the dangers of a patchwork of decisions around the country that could send elections into chaos if state officials had the freedom to determine who could appear on the ballot for president.

    The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how Section 3 could be enforced by Congress.

    The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.

    They alleged in court papers that Trump “intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.”

    The original article contains 915 words, the summary contains 235 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!