Politics

Jan. 6 should’ve disqualified Trump. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Published

2 years ago

November 11, 2024

Jan. 6 should’ve disqualified Trump. The Supreme Court disagreed.

This article is the second in a five-part series called “Protecting the Election.” As former President Donald Trump and many of his allies refuse to concede his defeat in the 2020 election, this BLN Daily series brings election law and policy experts to explore the many threats to certifying election results at both the state and national levels.

With former President Donald Trump on the precipice of possibly becoming president again, let’s recall that he’s on the 2024 ballot thanks partly to the Supreme Court.

I’m not talking about the ruling granting him broad criminal immunity. Though the Roberts Court’s handling of that appeal helped Trump push off a trial in the federal election interference case — possibly forever, if he wins the election and deploys his reacquired presidential power to crush it.

I’m talking about another Jan. 6-related appeal from the last Supreme Court term, one that more directly positioned the Republican to take office again: Trump v. Anderson.

It was there that the justices reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to keep the former president from the ballot. The case was technically about one state during the primary process, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling effectively scrapped nationwide efforts to enforce the constitutional provision barring oath-breaking insurrectionists from office.

As a reminder, here’s what that post-Civil War provision, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, says:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

In a lengthy December decision, a majority of Colorado’s top court cited that language in agreeing that Trump “engaged in” the Jan. 6 insurrection after having sworn to support the Constitution as president.

“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the state court said Dec. 19, adding: “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.” The public reaction included threats against the Colorado judges.

Maine’s secretary of state reached the same conclusion later that month (and was likewise threatened), raising the stakes for the high court’s inevitable intervention.

The justices seemingly saw a Trump-friendly ruling as inevitable, too. During the Feb. 8 hearing in Washington, Chief Justice John Roberts worried about the “plain consequences” of permitting states like Colorado to disqualify insurrectionist candidates. He mused:

In very quick order, I would expect … a goodly number of states will say, ‘Whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot,’ and others, for the Republican candidate, ‘You’re off the ballot,’ and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.

That could be an understandable reaction from a random person not versed in the law or the facts. But this is the chief justice of the United States. For one thing, casual observers know that a handful of states basically do decide elections in our skewed Electoral College system. And more to the point, if any Democratic insurrectionists are blocked from the ballot, too, then that’s their problem. Even if Roberts’ stated concern was well-founded, it didn’t grapple with the law.

But the consequentialist view would prevail. It was just a matter of the court figuring out how to legally accomplish the practical goal of keeping Trump on the ballot. The decision came just ahead of the Super Tuesday primary voting day in March. It was an unsigned “per curiam” ruling, though it was actually authored by Roberts, according to a New York Times report that wasn’t confirmed by NBC News or BLN.

While the justices were unanimous on the bottom line that states couldn’t disqualify presidential candidates, the Times reported on the internal machinations:

four of the conservatives were pushing to go beyond that and rule that the Constitution’s prohibition would require congressional action to take effect. Such a decision would provide greater protection for Mr. Trump: To prevent him from taking office if he won re-election, Congress would have to vote to enforce the insurrectionist ban.

Roberts joined those four Republican appointees in the opinion that sparked two separate ones, both of which highlighted the lack of unanimity on the court. One of them came from the three Democratic appointees. Though styled a concurrence “in the judgment” (meaning on the bottom line), it reads at points more like a straight-up dissent, accusing the majority of needlessly resolving “novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner [Trump] from future controversy.”

The other separate opinion came from Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett. Adding her own bizarre thoughts to the affair, she agreed with the Democratic appointees that the majority went too far but nonetheless chided the trio for “stridency” in how it expressed disagreement.

Getting back to the substance of the matter, consider the view of conservative law professor William Baude. He previously clerked for Roberts and co-authored key scholarship before the ruling explaining why Trump is disqualified and, intriguingly, maintained in a post-ruling piece that Trump is still disqualified. He wrote in an op-ed after the decision that the Supreme Court:

swiftly overruled the [Colorado] decision without even confronting the question of whether Mr. Trump had engaged in an insurrection or was therefore disqualified from office. Instead it concocted an argument, not raised by any of the parties, that states specifically lack the power to consider this part of the Constitution in making ballot access decisions.

Trump v. Anderson’s holding lacked any real basis in text and history and also is at odds with the basic structure of the Electoral College, in which states have primary authority to decide how their slates of electors are chosen. The ruling’s real function was to let the court reverse the Colorado Supreme Court and avoid the political firestorm that might have ensued, without requiring the court to take sides on what happened on Jan. 6.

Indeed, the available evidence — the hearing, the decision, the investigative reporting — suggests the court started from the conclusion that Trump just had to stay on the ballot and then attempted to reason backward from there.

And no doubt, it’s probably an understatement that a “political firestorm” would’ve ensued had the court held Trump to the Constitution. Look no further than the threats against judges and election officials who dared to rule against him on this issue and others. Look no further than the Trump-backed violence of Jan. 6.

So, what about the “plain consequences,” to use the chief justice’s concerned phrase, of an oath-breaking insurrectionist potentially running the country again, this time knowing he’d have broad criminal immunity heading into a second term? That consequence apparently was not “daunting” enough to move this court.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.

Politics

US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict

Published

31 minutes ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Treasury Department could prevent a U.S. debt default for several months after that…
Read More

Politics

US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict

Published

2 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Treasury Department could prevent a U.S. debt default for several months after that…
Read More

Politics

Poll: Voter cynicism remains a potent threat to incumbents across the globe

Published

2 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Voters punished ruling parties across the globe in 2024. They are doing it again now.

The same voters who rejected their rulers without mercy on both sides of the Atlantic — throwing out Britain’s Conservatives after 14 years in power and humbling Democrats in the United States — are now poised to deliver resounding defeats to the very leaders they elected two years ago.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces the prospect of being ousted later this year if a key rival in Manchester can pull off a win in a special parliamentary vote next week. President Donald Trump, while locked into power until January 2029, appears to be barreling toward lame duck status with Democrats growing increasingly bullish about their midterm prospects in November — particularly in winning back the U.S. House.

And The POLITICO Poll suggests Western voters’ desire for political bloodletting hasn’t abated.

Building on previous work by Public First, the London-based firm that conducts the survey, a new analysis of May Blue Light News Poll results show large shares of voters in both the United Kingdom and United States express deep cynicism about politics and a constant desire for radical change — suggesting the forces behind the backlash may still be potent, and that power switching hands this year may not be enough to quell them.

In America, 71 percent of adults say politicians only look out for themselves, including 79 percent of those who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 and 71 percent who voted for Trump. In the U.K., voters are similarly angry at politicians, who they blame for being unable to address a variety of issues, including cost of living and immigration. New results from The POLITICO Poll, conducted over the weekend, show a 56 percent majority of U.K. adults said the bigger problem with politics in the U.K. is the politicians who do not do the right thing, while just 15 percent blame the system itself.

That deep dissatisfaction has metastasized into a perpetual anti-incumbent frustration in recent years. In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party had its worst result in a national election in several decades, and Canada’s Justin Trudeau stepped down amid growing voter frustration. Just since February of last year, the rulers of Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic have all been ejected at key elections.

Now the U.K. is watching the vote in Makerfield next week, which may determine whether Starmer gets to keep his job amid public outrage at his handling of fallout from the Epstein scandal, and voter concerns about immigration, the economy and law enforcement. If Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, succeeds in being elected back to Parliament next week, it will almost certainly trigger a series of events that could end in the removal of the deeply unpopular Starmer as the head of the Labour Party — and prime minister.

The result could ripple across the Atlantic as Republicans face their own political headwinds ahead of the crucial November midterms in the United States.

“What we’re seeing is a cross-Atlantic disconnect between voters and electeds,” said Kevin Madden, a longtime GOP communications strategist in Washington and senior partner at Penta, a consulting firm.

“Voters in the U.S. are squarely focused on at-home domestic priorities and kitchen-table concerns like food, health care and housing costs. So when the headlines are focused on foreign conflict and disruptions to global markets, those will reinforce the disconnect.”

Deep cynicism in the UK spells trouble for Starmer

In 2024, the rejection of incumbents came amid a growing frustration over the cost of living and broader economic anxieties. Whether that backlash was a temporary response — or reflects an engrained dissatisfaction with political institutions — is a question now confronting leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, as affordability concerns continue to spiral.

In the U.K., the analysis from Public First finds a deep sense of political disillusionment. The firm developed a series of measures to understand that feeling of “anti-politics”, and cynicism stood out: Voters who believe politicians are self-serving, that political talk rarely leads to real action and that the public has little influence over what politicians actually do.

Nearly half of British adults — 45 percent — scored high on Public First’s cynicism scale; so did 37 percent of U.S. adults.

The findings underscore the challenge facing Starmer. New results from The Blue Light News Poll conducted last weekend show nearly two-thirds of U.K. adults — 64 percent — said they don’t think Starmer will remain as prime minister until the next general election.

The center-left U.K. leader has suffered the most dramatic plunge in popularity of any prime minister in British history. Since winning a landslide victory just under two years ago, Starmer has seen his Labour Party fall to historic lows in opinion polls, while the nationalist right-wing Reform U.K. of Nigel Farage has stormed into the lead in polls and local elections, mirroring the success of insurgent populists across Europe.

Three-quarters of highly cynical voters in the U.K. hold an unfavorable view of Starmer, the Public First analysis of a May Blue Light News Poll found — far higher than the national average.

The Makerfield by-election on June 18 will determine whether Burnham, Starmer’s chief internal rival, is elected as Labour’s representative, giving him the chance to challenge Starmer for the party leadership and potentially replace him as prime minister. Burnham’s main rival in the by-election is the Reform U.K. candidate — whose victory would likely end Burnham’s leadership ambitions, plunge Labour into unprecedented turmoil and send the national government into fresh disarray.

But Makerfield looks likely to be terrible for Starmer, whoever wins. Either it will be Burnham, who will then go to London to try to oust the prime minister, or it will be Reform U.K. — fuelling claims that Starmer has toxified his own party beyond repair.

Why Trump should be watching closely

It’s a cautionary tale for Trump, the Public First research found.

As Starmer confronts dropping favorability ratings, Trump’s own numbers have also plummeted — and the segment of cynical Americans may be as dangerous for the president as their British cohort is for the prime minister.

Among this group, 57 percent hold an unfavorable view of Trump and his agenda, compared with 48 percent nationally.

That could pose a challenge for Republicans heading into the midterms. Elections in the U.S. historically punish the party in power, and many Republicans are bracing for an even more difficult than anticipated midterm landscape, fueled by the mounting economic concerns and an unpopular war in Iran.

“The biggest mood shift is taking place among voters in the big middle,” Madden said. “These are the same voters that migrated toward Trump and the GOP in 2024 because they were nostalgic for a Trump economy and they rallied around a message focused on tackling inflation.”.

Sizable shares of cynical Americans hold negative views about the economy. Among these respondents, 52 percent say their financial situation has worsened since Trump took office in 2025 and 59 percent say Trump has spent too much time focused on international affairs rather than domestic issues.

Trump, who rode to power in 2024 in large part over voter dissatisfaction to the economy during the Biden administration, is now confronting a similar challenge. Recent polling finds voters increasingly blaming Trump for their financial pressures, even as he continues to cast blame to his predecessor.

Part of the problem for incumbents is that many people blame politicians — not the broader system — for their dissatisfaction, underscoring the challenge for the leaders as voters begin to turn on them. Nearly half of British adults, 45 percent, say the country keeps changing prime ministers “because none of them are any good,” while just 26 percent blame “big problems that not even a good PM could solve.”

As soon as leaders are elected by a frustrated, dissatisfied electorate to turn things around — as both Starmer and Trump were in 2024 — the clock begins to tick.

“Elections are so often now about which candidate can channel the frustrations of a cynical electorate,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, Blue Light News’s polling partner.

“Republicans and Democratic candidates alike should pay attention to what is happening in the U.K.,” he said. “It is far harder to win over an antipolitical voter base when you represent the ‘politics,’ and given how fast Britain is working through Prime Ministers cynical voters seem to be getting more common and less patient.”