Judge Amy Coney Barrett issued a rare opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision keeping Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot, issuing a call to “lower the national temperature” during a fierce election season.
As a trio of liberal justices on the court, Barrett, a Trump appointee, decided the majority had gone too far in its 20-page ruling that “states cannot unilaterally disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot” and voted to reverse the decision of a Colorado court. hitting Trump.
He joined the overall decision but warned against “strident” divisions on the court, during an election season in which the high court is making major decisions about presidential immunity while lower courts make scheduling decisions that will determine whether Trump faces jury verdicts before hearing. November elections.
That separated her from the three liberals in tone, if not in legal reasoning, as the liberals pondered how to apply the law to an “oath-breaking insurrectionist.”
‘The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining justices with the option of choosing how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to stridently amplify disagreement,’ Barrett wrote in her one-page opinion.
“This is not the time to amplify disagreement,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in her concurring opinion as the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to keep Donald Trump on the ballot.
‘The Court has resolved a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Especially in these circumstances, writings about the Court should lower the national temperature, not raise it. For present purposes, our differences are much less important than our unanimity: all nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That’s the message Americans should take home,” he wrote.
Barrett, who was confirmed by the Senate just eight days before the 2020 election in the culmination of a process that infuriated Democrats, wrote that she agreed that states lack the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th amendment, which includes language prohibiting people who participated. in insurrection to hold any ‘position’ in the US.
“That principle is enough to resolve this case and I would not decide more than that.” But he writes that the majority went too far by setting conditions under which only Congress approves legislation.
‘The lawsuit was filed by Colorado voters under state law in state court. ‘It does not require us to address the complicated question of whether federal law is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced,’ he wrote.
In a 20-page ruling, the court held that only Congress can decide whether or not Trump is eligible to run.
“The responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officials and candidates rests with Congress and not with the states,” the majority wrote.
The ruling by the conservative majority court means that the name of the Republican favorite will appear on the ballots in the Colorado primary.
Anti-Trump protesters protest outside the US Supreme Court before the court decides whether former US President Donald Trump is eligible to run for president in the 2024 election in Washington, DC, on February 8, 2024.
The ruling removes another hurdle for former President Donald Trump, who has been fighting a series of legal battles on his path to the nomination.
“States cannot unilaterally disqualify Donald Trump from the election,” the justices added in overturning a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court. ‘The ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed.
“The terms of the Amendment refer only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys the power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5,” the majority held.
Although she issued her own separate opinion, Barrett’s opinion aligned with that of the court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“While we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision,” the liberal justices wrote.
Liberals criticized the court for failing to exercise restraint.
‘Today, the Court departs from that vital principle and decides not only this case, but also challenges that could arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado can keep a presidential candidate off the ballot on the basis that he is an oath-breaking insurrectionist and therefore disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ , they wrote.
We agree that allowing Colorado to do so would create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our nation’s federalist principles.
Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett, left, and Sonia Sotomayor joined separate opinions that upheld the court’s opinion keeping Trump on the Colorado ballot.
Barrett issued her own one-page opinion
They complain that the decision “prevents judicial application of that provision, as could occur when a party is prosecuted as an insurrectionist and presents a defense in that regard.”
Harvard jurist Lawrence Tribe, who supported the 14th Amendment, criticized Barrett’s reasoning in an online post.
‘Judge Barrett told us what “message Americans should take home” from today’s ruling: Even if Trump’s role in the insurrection we barely survived disqualifies him under the Constitution from holding office again, only the legislation of Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment we can implement that absolutely vital ban,” wrote.
‘Barrett’s “take home” message from that order is that we should just relax because all nine justices agreed that Colorado exceeded what any state should have been able to do.’