Trump v. Anderson
Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that states could not determine eligibility for federal office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected former president Donald Trump's presidential eligibility on the basis of his actions during the January 6 Capitol attack, adhering to the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The case was known as Anderson v. Griswold in the Colorado state courts.
For the Illinois appellate court case addressing the same eligibility issue, see Anderson v. Trump.Trump v. Anderson
Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, Michelle Priola, Claudine Cmarada, Krista Kafer, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian
Certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court, Anderson v. Griswold
Barrett (in part and in judgment)
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson (in judgment)
The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump's actions before and during the attack constituted engaging in insurrection; their assertion is that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies presidential candidates who have engaged in insurrection against the United States. The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in Anderson v. Griswold was the first time that a presidential candidate was disqualified from office in a state on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court stayed its decision until a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.
On January 5, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Trump's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in Anderson v. Griswold on an accelerated pace; oral arguments were held on February 8, 2024. On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision. All nine justices held that an individual state cannot determine eligibility under Section 3 for federal office holders, and that such power is conferred exclusively to the federal government. A majority of the court also ruled that only Congress can enforce Section 3: the courts (federal or otherwise) cannot therefore declare a candidate ineligible for office under the said Section 3 unless an Act of Congress explicitly grants them that power; four justices disagreed with the latter decision and expressed concern in concurrences that this ruling went farther than needed at the time.
Lower court history[edit]
District Court[edit]
On September 6, 2023, six voters filed a lawsuit in Colorado state district court invoking the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The petitioners included four Republican voters (including former state Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, the titular plaintiff, and former U.S. Representative Claudine Schneider[12]) and two unaffiliated voters. The lawsuit asks for the court to prevent Trump from appearing on the state's Republican presidential primary. Jena Griswold is named as the respondent in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State,[13] while Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee are named as intervenors.[14] The trial began on October 30 with Judge Sarah B. Wallace presiding.[15] Wallace refused a request from Trump's lawyers to dismiss the case.[16]
The court heard from several eyewitnesses, including two police officers and a member of Congress; the case for Trump being disqualified also made use of some findings from the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.[17] Testimony in support of that case was also taken from an expert on far-right extremism and an expert on national security,[18] a constitutional law professor,[19] and an elections administrator.[20]
On November 17, Wallace ruled that Griswold must keep Trump on the ballot but stated that Trump engaged in insurrection by standard of preponderance of the evidence,[21] the first time a judge has explicitly stated Trump incited the January 6 Capitol attack,[22] with regards to his prior rhetoric and inaction during the attack.[23] Wallace stated that Trump was not an officer of the United States with sparse "direct evidence" suggesting the presidency is included as part of the functionary.[24]
The Colorado district court applied a definition whereby, in the context of section 3 of the fourteenth amendment, an insurrection is "a public use of force or threat of force ... by a group of people ... to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States".[25]
Colorado Supreme Court[edit]
The plaintiffs appealed on November 20.[26] The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to take up Anderson v. Griswold on November 21.[27] On December 19, the court ruled in a 4–3 per curiam decision[28] that Trump is disqualified from the primary ballot, reversing the district court's ruling.[29] In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court noted that not all other states have standards to pre-qualify candidates for primary elections, citing the primary election framework in Michigan; election law in Michigan does not include the term "qualified candidate", Michigan courts cannot explicitly assess the qualifications of a candidate, and the Michigan secretary of state's responsibilities are limited in primary elections. Colorado's election code, by contrast, provides the state with greater dominion over the removal of a candidate.[30]
Trump was found to have not merely incited an insurrection, but to have participated in one.[31] The Colorado Supreme Court found it unnecessary to define insurrection, instead holding that "it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of 'insurrection' for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country."[25]
Chief Justice Brian Boatright and justices Carlos Samour and Maria Berkenkotter offered dissenting opinions. Chief Justice Boatright dissented based on the contention that the question of whether a candidate had participated in an insurrection was too broad to be adjudicated under the relevant jurisdictional statute. Justice Samour doubted that the abbreviated trial proceeding on eligibility could have provided adequate due process.[32] He contrasted the amount of due process received by Trump to that which would have been mandatory in a criminal trial for insurrection.[33] Both Justice Samour and Justice Berkenkotter denied that there was a state law cause of action for enforcing Section Three.[34][35]
The court's ruling was initially stayed until January 4, 2024, the day before Colorado's deadline to print primary ballots,[36] though it was indefinitely extended.[37]
Within 24 hours of the ruling, numerous threats of violence and death were made on social media towards the members of the Colorado Supreme Court on the majority opinion.[38] The FBI stated they would investigate these threats alongside state and local police.[39]