When he’s not engaged in disputes with Taylor Swift or likening himself to Elvis Presley, Donald Trump devotes much of his time to expressing grievances about various government officials—often prosecutors, but sometimes former presidents and even members of his own Cabinet—whom he feels have wronged him.
However, on Monday, his tone was notably different as he expressed gratitude toward nine prominent figures in Washington, D.C., namely the Supreme Court, for their ruling that states cannot remove him from the ballot despite his attempted coup just over three years ago.
Speaking from Mar-a-Lago after the decision was announced, Trump lauded the justices for their diligent and expeditious handling of the matter, which he deemed “extremely important” and likely to be discussed for centuries to come.
He expressed particular satisfaction with the unanimous nature of the decision, describing it as a “nine-to-nothing vote” that left him feeling “very honored.” Not only did the Court reinstate Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in Colorado, from which he had been disqualified, but the majority decision also made it significantly more challenging to disqualify other potential presidential candidates with similar past actions.
Donald Trump (Credits: Reuters)
The justices made a clear distinction between state and national elections, emphasizing that while states have the authority to disqualify individuals from holding or seeking state office, they lack the constitutional power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in relation to federal offices, particularly the Presidency.
Five of the six conservative justices went further, asserting that enforcement of the disqualification clause for national office can only be achieved through federal legislation rather than through federal court challenges or non-legislative actions by Congress.
However, the three liberal justices issued a strongly worded concurrence, expressing dissatisfaction with the majority’s approach. They argued that it unnecessarily closed the door to other potential means of federal enforcement and criticized the majority for effectively shielding alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding office.
Even conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett shared this sentiment, though she declined to join the liberals’ opinion due to her disapproval of their tone. She did, however, indicate that the lawsuit under consideration did not necessitate addressing the question of whether federal legislation is the exclusive means of enforcing Section 3.
Monday’s ruling was just one of several anticipated Supreme Court decisions this term that directly involve Trump and, by extension, the future of democracy. Next month, the Court is set to hear arguments concerning Trump’s claims of immunity, in which he asserts that presidents cannot be held accountable for their actions.
Trump, echoing past assertions, argued on his Truth Social platform that without total immunity from the law, presidents would be vulnerable to wrongful prosecution and retaliation, potentially leading to extortion and blackmail. He maintained that presidents must be free to make decisions without fear of retribution.
While it would be surprising for the Court to side with Trump’s immunity claims, given their absurdity, the justices have already granted him a victory by agreeing to hear the case and scheduling arguments for late April. This decision effectively delays his federal election-subversion case, further raising questions about the extent of the Court’s favor toward him.
