Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.).

So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461448)

JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in

the judgment.

I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.

The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461453)

definitely not a poaster.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461458)

this kind of feminine thinking of just kicking the can down the lane to avoid immediate bad feelings causes way more harm than good.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47462253)

if the ruling is over broad, that's the fault of blues.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47464243)

===

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE

JACKSON, concurring in the judgment.

“If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our Republic. This Court is authorized “to say what the law is” only because “[t]hose who apply [a] rule to particular cases . . . must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis added).

Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461454)

@ProfMMurray

·

23m

dat snark

====

Quick thoughts on Trump v. Anderson.

1) This could have been a one-pager....

2) But 5 Justices wanted to go further to answer questions that weren't on the table

3) Something that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson called them on

4) The SS, EK, KBJ dissent is dripping in snark. 🔥

https://twitter.com/ProfMMurray/status/1764678233734148467

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461634)

The 3 libs (apparently thirsty to invite biden's jackbooted thugs in the DOJ to act against trump) on vague grounds only wanted to bar colorado/states from acting (bc reasons)

Barrett agreed with the libs that that that should have been the reasoning because it is a narrower holding which is ethpethially important in a contentious case

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461473)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461507)

they just wanted to leave the door open for some other federal body to pwn POTUS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47462268)

===

Neal Katyal

@neal_katyal

It’s a win for Trump. At the same time, remember that the Supreme Court’s decision today did not do what Donald Trump had asked: clear him of insurrection. The Colorado court found that he so was, and Trump had an entire section of his SCOTUS brief arguing he was peaceful on 1/6. The Court didn’t do what he asked; it did not clear him. And the act’s decision leaves space for his criminal trial about Jan 6 to proceed, should the Court dispose of the other Trump immunity case quickly in the Spring (as it can and must). The Court took 25 days to render this decision. Anything longer in the immunity case would be deeply inconsistent with what it did here.

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1764674263737364769

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47461636)

So it was clearly going to be a win. But I actually wasn't in love with any *one* of the TRUMP arguments. The real (principled) reason to side with TRUMP here is the overarching anti-democratic feel of the opposite result, which of course was also a tough stream for anti-TRUMPers to swim against as they're trying to go 7-0 on novel legal issues.

I actually think that the 5-justice rationale (that the 3 libs and barrett bitched about reaching) probably comes the closest to addressing the real concern re: possible abuses of applying an infinitely flexible term like "insurrection": if Congress wants to set up a real set of substantive definitions and adjudicatory procedures ex ante of any disqualification (and ideally ex ante of any putative insurrection, although there's only one guaranteed vote for the ex post facto clause applying to this), that's fine, but we can't be just deciding ad hoc that one accidental riot is a 14A insurrection because the news networks bring on 3 years worth of MAF lib lawprof pundits to say it clearly is, but when some milwaukee-area state senator riles up a crowd that later burns down a police station, that's not an insurrection because msnbc brought on BOTH 5'4" larry tribe AND 5'7" neal katyal to sneer without citation at the argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47467809)

https://live.staticflickr.com/7307/9983342976_2852581041_b.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47468368)

https://i.ibb.co/KxbR88w/a6874dc9bc9ed340.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5499303&forum_id=2#47462962)