Politics usually feels like a shouting match. Everyone has an opinion, and usually, those opinions are split right down the middle, like a cracked windshield. But every once in a while, the nine justices over at One First Street decide to actually agree on something. They did exactly that with the Supreme Court ruling 9-0 in Trump v. Anderson.
It’s rare.
Think about it. You have Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor—two people who probably wouldn't agree on a lunch order—signing their names to the same primary judgment. They didn't just disagree with Colorado's attempt to kick Donald Trump off the ballot; they effectively shut the door on any state trying to use the 14th Amendment’s "insurrectionist clause" against a federal candidate without a green light from Congress.
What the 14th Amendment Actually Says (and Doesn't Say)
The whole fight started with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This is a Civil War-era relic. It was designed to keep former Confederates from slinking back into government roles after they’d just tried to tear the country apart. It says that anyone who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" is disqualified from holding office.
Colorado’s Supreme Court looked at January 6th and said, "Yeah, that fits."
They kicked him off.
But the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and basically told them they were overstepping. The court’s logic was pretty straightforward: if every state could decide for itself who is an "insurrectionist" based on their own local trials or political whims, the national election would be a disaster. You'd have a "patchwork" of ballots. One state says Candidate A is in; another says they’re out. It would be chaos.
The "Per Curiam" Power Move
The decision was issued as a "per curiam" opinion. That’s fancy Latin for "by the court." It means the ruling isn't attributed to one single justice. It’s a collective voice.
While the Supreme Court ruling 9-0 was unanimous in the result—meaning all nine agreed Trump stays on the ballot—there was a bit of a spicy "disagreeing while agreeing" vibe happening in the background. The three liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson) weren't exactly thrilled with how far the conservative majority went.
💡 You might also like: Wisconsin Judicial Elections 2025: Why This Race Broke Every Record
They argued that the five-justice majority didn't need to decide how Congress has to enforce Section 3. The majority said Congress has to pass specific legislation to make it work. The liberals basically said, "Whoa, let's just stick to the Colorado case and not tie the hands of future courts or Congress."
It’s a classic judicial nerd fight.
Even Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, wrote a separate bit saying the court shouldn't have gone so deep into the weeds. She wanted to lower the temperature. She wrote, "For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity." She basically told everyone to pipe down and focus on the fact that they actually agreed on the outcome.
Why This Isn't Just About One Person
If you think this is only about Trump, you’re missing the forest for the trees. This ruling fundamentally shifts the balance of power between the states and the federal government regarding national elections.
Imagine if Texas decided a Democratic candidate was ineligible because of "insurrectionist" rhetoric regarding border policy. Or if New York decided a Republican was ineligible for something else. Without this Supreme Court ruling 9-0, we were headed for a world where local judges in small counties could effectively decide who the President of the United States gets to be.
That’s a terrifying prospect for anyone who likes stability.
The Supreme Court Ruling 9-0 and the "Political Question"
The Court essentially signaled that some things are too big for the judiciary to handle without clear instructions from the people’s representatives. By saying Congress must act first, they threw the hot potato back into the lap of the Capitol.
It’s about federalism.
📖 Related: Casey Ramirez: The Small Town Benefactor Who Smuggled 400 Pounds of Cocaine
- States have the power to run their own internal elections.
- States can disqualify people for state offices (like a local sheriff or a governor).
- States cannot unilaterally disqualify a candidate for a federal office like the Presidency using Section 3.
This distinction is massive. It protects the national character of the executive branch. If the President represents the whole country, one state shouldn't be able to veto the choice of the other forty-nine.
The Fallout You Might Have Missed
After the ruling, other states that were looking at similar challenges—like Maine and Illinois—had to fall in line. Their efforts to remove the former president became legally dead in the water.
But here’s the kicker: the ruling didn't actually say whether or not an insurrection happened. It didn't "exonerate" anyone in the way a criminal trial does. It simply said the mechanism Colorado used was the wrong tool for the job. It was like trying to perform surgery with a chainsaw. You might get the part out, but you’re going to destroy everything else in the process.
Expert Perspectives: Is the 14th Amendment Now a "Dead Letter"?
Some legal scholars, like those at the Brennan Center for Justice, have expressed concern that this ruling makes it almost impossible to ever enforce Section 3 again. If it requires an Act of Congress to disqualify someone, and Congress is perpetually gridlocked, then the "Insurrectionist Clause" is effectively asleep.
On the flip side, originalists argue this is exactly what the Framers of the 14th Amendment intended. They wanted a uniform national standard, not a chaotic free-for-all. Professor Samuel Issacharoff from NYU Law has often discussed how "democratic hedging"—the idea of using courts to protect democracy from itself—is a dangerous game. The Court seems to agree. They'd rather let the voters decide at the ballot box than have a judge in Denver make the call.
What This Means for Future Elections
We are now in a post-Colorado world. The Supreme Court ruling 9-0 creates a shield around federal candidates.
It prevents "lawfare" from becoming the primary way we narrow down the field of candidates. Whether you love or hate the people on the ballot, the Court’s unanimous front suggests they are deeply worried about the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary. They don't want to be the ones picking winners and losers.
By staying out of it, they actually asserted their power.
👉 See also: Lake Nyos Cameroon 1986: What Really Happened During the Silent Killer’s Release
Actionable Insights for the Informed Citizen
Understanding the legal landscape is better than just following the headlines. Here is how you should look at these rulings moving forward:
Don't expect the 14th Amendment to be a "quick fix" for political issues. The Court has made it clear that disqualification is a legislative matter. If you want someone barred from office for their actions, it has to happen through the impeachment process or specific federal laws, not through state-level lawsuits.
Watch the "Shadow Docket" and Per Curiam rulings. When the Court issues a ruling without a single author, they are trying to project strength and unity. It’s a signal to the lower courts to stop experimenting with radical legal theories.
Distinguish between "Result" and "Reasoning." Just because a ruling is 9-0 doesn't mean the justices are friends. Read the concurrences. That’s where the real hints about future rulings are hidden. The friction between the majority and the liberal wing in this case suggests that while they agreed on the "No" for Colorado, they are miles apart on how much power Congress actually holds.
Verify the source of election challenges. Most of these cases start with small advocacy groups. While they grab headlines, the Supreme Court ruling 9-0 shows that the highest court in the land has a very high bar for disrupting a national election.
The legal system moves slowly, but it tends to prioritize stability over shock. This ruling was a massive vote for the status quo and a reminder that in the eyes of the Court, the ultimate authority remains with the voters and their elected representatives in Congress, not with state-level judicial interprets.
Stay focused on the legislative updates coming out of D.C. If there is ever a move to "activate" Section 3, it will start in a Congressional committee, not a state courtroom. That is the new roadmap for American disqualification law.