The storming of the US Capitol was a turning point. Trump’s opponents argue that this means he cannot become president again. The Supreme Court is thwarting their plans.
Significant victory for former US President Donald Trump at the US Supreme Court: The Republican successfully fended off attempts by his opponents to exclude him from the presidential race. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Colorado and other states have no authority to remove Republicans from the party primary ballot.
Instead, this lies with the US Congress. The court thus provided clarity shortly before the important primary election day “Super Tuesday”. This Tuesday, Republicans and Democrats will vote on their candidates for the presidential nomination in more than a dozen states – including Colorado.
Judgment of great importance
The decision is not a surprise – but it is still of great consequence. At a hearing at the beginning of February, it was already indicated that the nine judges would decide in Trump’s favor. For many experts, the Supreme Court’s decision had a historical dimension even before the actual verdict, because the judge’s ruling has a direct influence on the course of the presidential election. Trump celebrated the victory on the “Truth Social” platform he co-founded and wrote in capital letters: “Great victory for America!!!”
Trump wants to run again for the Republicans in the US presidential election at the beginning of November. Anyone who wants to run as a presidential candidate must prevail in internal party primaries. Plaintiffs have been trying for some time in various states to prevent Trump from participating in the primaries and to have the 77-year-old’s name removed from ballot papers.
The background to the dispute is the unprecedented attack on the US parliament building almost exactly three years ago. Trump supporters violently stormed the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021. Congress met there to formally confirm Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.
Opponents argue with Trump’s role in the storming of the Capitol
Trump had previously incited his supporters during a speech with unsubstantiated claims that the election victory had been stolen from him through massive fraud. Trump’s opponents are of the opinion that Trump should not be allowed to move into the White House again because of his behavior after the 2020 election.
They argue with the so-called insurrection clause in the Constitution. It basically means that no one who has previously taken part in an uprising against the state as an official may hold a higher office in the state. Although some examples of such higher offices are given in the passage, the office of president is not explicitly mentioned.
An explosive verdict in December got the ball rolling. The highest court in the state of Colorado ruled that former President Trump was disqualified from the Republican primary for the presidential nomination in the state because of his role in the storming of the US Capitol. Trump appealed. The judgment was suspended until the issue was finally resolved. The case ultimately ended up in the highest court in the USA.
Similar decisions were made in the states of Maine and Illinois. Colorado’s chief elections supervisor, Jena Griswold, expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision. She wrote that Colorado should be able to remove “oath-breaking insurrectionists” from the ballot there.
Supreme Court does not comment on the content of the storming of the Capitol
The Supreme Court has now made it clear that states have no authority to remove presidential candidates from the ballot based on the insurrection clause. Instead, the court said, that power rests with the U.S. Congress. Therefore, the ruling of Colorado’s highest court cannot stand. The decisions of other states are also invalid. The court warned of chaos if candidates in different states were removed from the ballot.
Even before the decision, there were indications that the Supreme Court might shift responsibility to Congress. The Court has not taken a substantive position on whether the storming of the Capitol was an insurrection or not. Some legal experts had previously warned that the Supreme Court could rule that Congress must act before the Insurrection Clause can be applied to a specific person.
Instead, they relied on the judges to make a substantive decision. Some even fear a constitutional crisis in future elections regarding the power of Congress.
