Supreme Court's Ballot Ruling Wasn't a Home Run for Donald Trump

The Supreme Court handed former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign a win with its latest ruling, but it wasn't exactly a home run for the Republican frontrunner.

The court ruled in Trump's favor Monday, reversing the Colorado Supreme Court's decision that determined the former president was ineligible for the state's primary ballot because of his role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot. In a unanimous ruling, the nine justices agreed that an individual state shouldn't be able to choose who gets to run for the White House.

However, the court not only split over how the disqualification clause should be enforced but also opted out of weighing in on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection, despite having the chance to do so.

"The court had the option to directly address and set aside the insurrection holding of the Colorado courts, which would have also turned had the effect of overturning similar holdings in Maine and in Illinois, but they didn't do that," former U.S. Ambassador Norm Eisen told Newsweek.

"That by itself sends a powerful message underlining that every fact finder to address the question [of insurrection] has found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection," he said.

The Supreme Court's failure to address whether Trump was an insurrectionist caught the eye of legal observers who noted that the majority opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court said that Trump was essentially asking the courts to rule that the disqualification clause applies to every office "except the highest one in the land."

"The Supreme Court's decision and the case, in the end, didn't address the definition of insurrectionist or the factual findings by the Colorado courts about Trump being an insurrectionist," former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek. "Those findings exist, but the Court held that Colorado didn't have the power to make those conclusions pursuant to Section Three."

Former Acting Solicitor General of the United States Neal Katyal agreed that while Monday's ruling was a win for Trump, it failed to do what the former president had asked—clear him of insurrection—and because of this, it could signal bad news down the road.

"Trump had an entire section of his SCOTUS brief arguing he was peaceful on 1/6," Katyal said in a post on X, formerly Twitter. "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)."

Trump's legal team had argued in its brief that the former president "did not 'engage in insurrection'" and that "President Trump's words that day called for peaceful and patriotic protest and respect for law and order."

"The Court should also reverse because nothing that President Trump did in response to the 2020 election or on January 6, 2021, even remotely qualifies as 'insurrection,'" the brief reads. "No prosecutor has attempted to charge President Trump with insurrection under 28 U.S.C. § 2383 in the three years since January 6, 2021, despite the relentless and ongoing investigations of President Trump."

Citizens for Ethics, the group that represented the group of Colorado voters seeking to disqualify Trump, also highlighted the Supreme Court's refusal to weigh in on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection.

"Crucially, the Court did *not* exonerate Trump of insurrection. They had the chance to do so and chose not to," the nonprofit tweeted. "While the Supreme Court allowed Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump. Every court–or decision-making body–that has substantively examined the issue has determined that January 6th was an insurrection and Trump incited it."

The speed with which the Supreme Court issued its decision on the ballot case has also prompted legal scholars to call for the justices to act with the same sense of urgency on the immunity matter. Last week, the court agreed to hear Trump's immunity argument that as a former president, he should be exempt from criminal prosecution.

"They ought to apply the same standard that they clearly applied here," Eisen said. "They decided this on the eve of Super Tuesday because they recognize that Americans have a right to know if a candidate on the ballot was an insurrectionist. Surely, that identical argument applies in the immunity case, namely that Americans have a right to know if Donald Trump abused the official powers that he is trying to regain."

Noting that the court took 25 days to issue Monday's decision, Katyal argued that it would be "deeply inconsistent" if the justices took anything longer than that to rule on the immunity case.