In the run up to the Super Tuesday votes and with the Republican presidential nomination nearly secured, this Monday brought a pivotal victory for Donald Trump at the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that Colorado cannot keep Trump off the primary ballots, where his name still appeared despite a previous state ban. These primaries are among the fifteen state contests Republicans will hold on Tuesday, a moment that underscores the high stakes of the candidate’s status on the ballot.
Colorado’s Supreme Court had previously concluded in December that Trump was ineligible to seek or hold office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil War era measure prohibiting a person who has sworn to uphold the Constitution from serving after participating in insurrection or giving aid or comfort to its enemies. The nine justices of the Supreme Court, reversing that decision, determined that the responsibility to apply Section 3 against federal candidates and offices lies with Congress, not with states.
The ruling carries implications for other states that had invalidated Trump by deeming his actions in contesting the 2020 results as having constituted an insurrection. It marks a significant triumph for Trump, not only because similar bans in Maine and Illinois were tied to this decision, but also because it preserves his ballot access across primaries and the presidential race for other states that sought to remove him from ballots.
The Supreme Court and elections
This marks the first occasion since 2020 when the Court has directly intervened in a presidential race in the United States. The action on Monday signals the Court will play a direct role in this campaign and in future elections. Earlier in the week, the Court agreed to hear arguments on Trump assertions of executive immunity for actions taken while in office, with oral arguments slated for the week of April 22. That step effectively freezes the criminal proceedings in Washington, including a case with up to 91 charges against Trump, until a decision is reached.
A decision that had been anticipated
Already a month ago, during the Colorado case hearing, justices across the ideological spectrum had shown skepticism about the state’s power to exclude Trump from the ballot. In that sitting, Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the minority liberal bloc, voiced the central doubt: why should a single state decide who can be president of the United States
Why this matters now and going forward
The ruling reframes how ballots are managed in states that rely on constitutional provisions to determine eligibility. It suggests that the power to disqualify candidates in federal elections may rest with Congress rather than individual states, potentially shaping long term ballot access rules and the contours of presidential campaigns. For Trump, the outcome reinforces his presence on ballots not just for the upcoming primaries but throughout the broader electoral cycle. For supporters and opponents alike, the decision adds a new layer of complexity to how the fevered political landscape is navigated as Election Day approaches. [Attribution: Supreme Court decision coverage by major outlets]