It feels like a lifetime ago, but the legal drama surrounding Donald Trump’s eligibility to be on the ballot was basically all anyone could talk about for months. You probably remember the headlines. Colorado’s Supreme Court dropped a bombshell by saying he was disqualified. Maine followed suit. People were arguing at Thanksgiving dinner about the 14th Amendment like they were all Ivy League constitutional scholars.
Yet, when the dust settled, he was back on the ballot in every single state.
Why? Honestly, it comes down to a mix of very old rules, a massive Supreme Court ruling, and the fact that the U.S. Constitution is surprisingly short on deal-breakers for who can be president. If you’re looking for the short answer: the Supreme Court stepped in and said states don’t have the power to kick a federal candidate off the ballot for "insurrection" without Congress weighing in first.
But the "why" goes a lot deeper than just one court case.
The Three "Golden Rules" of the Constitution
The U.S. Constitution is kinda picky about some things and weirdly relaxed about others. To run for president, you only really need to check three boxes. You have to be at least 35 years old. You have to be a "natural-born" citizen. And you have to have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
👉 See also: The Ethical Maze of Airplane Crash Victim Photos: Why We Look and What it Costs
That’s it.
There is no "good character" clause. No requirement to have a clean criminal record. In fact, Eugene Debs famously ran for president from a prison cell in 1920 and pulled about a million votes. So, while the 91 original criminal charges Trump faced were a massive political obstacle, legally speaking, they didn’t stop him from running. Even a conviction wouldn't have legally "disqualified" him under Article II.
The 14th Amendment Showdown
The real threat to his campaign wasn't the criminal cases, though. It was Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This is the "Insurrection Clause." It was written after the Civil War to keep former Confederates from sliding back into government power. It basically says if you took an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion," you’re barred from holding office.
In late 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court looked at what happened on January 6th and decided Trump’s actions fit that description. They ordered him removed from the state’s primary ballot.
✨ Don't miss: The Brutal Reality of the Russian Mail Order Bride Locked in Basement Headlines
It was a total "hold my drink" moment for the legal world.
Why the Supreme Court Stepped In
When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court—officially called Trump v. Anderson—the justices weren't really interested in debating whether January 6th was an insurrection. They focused on a much more "boring" but critical question of procedure: Who actually gets to decide?
The Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that Colorado had overstepped. Their logic was pretty straightforward: if every state could decide for themselves who is an "insurrectionist," we’d end up with a chaotic patchwork. Imagine a world where a candidate is eligible in Texas but "disqualified" in California based on the same set of facts. It would be a mess.
The justices decided that only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Since Congress hadn't passed a specific law to disqualify Trump, the states couldn't just do it on their own. This effectively ended the "insurrection" challenge nationwide.
🔗 Read more: The Battle of the Chesapeake: Why Washington Should Have Lost
The "Office Under the United States" Loophole
There was also a super nerdy legal debate about whether the President is even an "officer of the United States." It sounds ridiculous. Of course he is, right? Well, some lawyers argued that the way the Constitution is phrased, "officers" are people appointed by the President, not the President himself.
While the Supreme Court didn't lean too hard on this specific semantic quirk in their final ruling, it was one of the many technical escape hatches that kept the door open for his run.
What This Means for Future Elections
Essentially, the door is now closed on states using the 14th Amendment to prune their own federal ballots. Unless Congress passes a very specific piece of legislation—which, given the current political climate, is about as likely as a blizzard in Miami—the "insurrection" disqualification is mostly a dead letter for presidential races.
It also reinforces the idea that in the American system, the ultimate "background check" is the election itself. The courts have shown they are extremely hesitant to take the choice away from voters, even when the legal arguments are complex and the stakes are through the roof.
Practical Next Steps for Following Election Law:
- Track Congressional Legislation: Watch the "Congressional Record" or sites like GovTrack for any bills related to "Section 3 enforcement." This is the only way a candidate could be barred under the 14th Amendment in the future.
- Monitor State Ballot Access Laws: While states can't use the 14th Amendment for federal seats, they still control administrative rules (like filing deadlines and signature counts). These are often where third-party or controversial candidates actually get tripped up.
- Read the Per Curiam Opinion: If you want the full context, look up the Trump v. Anderson decision. It’s surprisingly readable for a legal document and explains exactly why the "uniformity" of federal elections matters more to the Court than individual state findings.