Supreme Court justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson in "Anderson v Trump" stated that Supreme Court of US should not limit how Section 3 of 14th Amendment can bar from becoming President, but only resolve whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot

  • Claim


Name

Supreme Court justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson in "Anderson v Trump" stated that Supreme Court of US should not limit how Section 3 of 14th Amendment can bar from becoming President, but only resolve whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot

Types

Claim

Opposing arguments

US Supreme Court in "Trump v Anderson" ruled that appropriated legislation from Congress is needed to enforce 14th amendment of US Constitution

Quotes that support the claim

The majority resolves much more than the case before us. Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.
Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.
The Court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot.

Referenced by

US Supreme Court in "Trump v Anderson" ruled that appropriated legislation from Congress is needed to enforce 14th amendment of US Constitution

US Politics

Claim

The Court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot.

US Politics

Quote

Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.

US Politics

Quote