Trump v. Anderson

-

Trump v. Anderson

Unbiased Case Analysis:

            After former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, he refused to accept the results and challenged the outcome in court and in the media. He sparked a rally on January 6, 2021, which results in a protest and chaos at the Capital. He is running again for president in 2024 and needs the Republican Party’s nomination in every state to have a chance to win. The Colorado Supreme Court banned Trump from being listed on the state’s ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court based their argument around Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. The section specifically bans individuals who incited insurrection from holding the office of president.

            The Supreme Court heard the case and ruled on it. The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Trump. The Court found that states cannot remove federal officials from office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Court did rule unanimously together, the justices provided a variety of differing opinions. The Court’s conservative majority found that only Congress can enforce the insurrection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s liberal majority strongly disagreed with this decision and found the majority went too far in their ruling. The Court’s unanimous decision was a per curiam decision meaning it was issued in the name of the Court itself. Despite the differing opinions on the specifics of the ruling the Court found it important to appear unified in this decision.

Personal Perspective:

            I agree with the Court’s decision that states do not and should not have the power to remove federal officials from office. This would create complete chaos throughout the country divided along party lines. I am conflicted about the majority’s decision to limit the enforcement of the insurrection clause to Congress. This prevents federal courts from weighing in on insurrection cases involving federal officials. They perhaps did go too far in their ruling and should have waited to make such a ruling in a more relevant case. This seems to continue a recent trend of the Court’s majority making decisions somewhat unrelated to the cases.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            Media outlets were divided on the coverage of this case. I was hard pressed to find left leaning outlets covering the results of this case. Notable outlets such as CNN declined to write an article on the final decision. The few I found seemed to be neutral or leaning towards the liberal minority’s thoughts. The Washington Post did write an article on the case which supported the ruling but disagreed with the conservative majority’s extra steps. Right leaning outlets such as the National Review praised the Court’s decision. They supported the Court’s majority decision to limit the enforcement of the insurrection clause to Congress.

Sources:

Trump v. Anderson | Oyez

Unanimity in the Trump v. Anderson Judgment Refutes the Court’s Critics | National Review

The Supreme Court ruled in the Trump ballot eligibility case. Here's the full text of the opinion. - CBS News

Takeaways from Supreme Court’s Trump ballot ruling - The Washington Post

Comments

  1. William RileyApril 10, 2024 at 8:59 AM

    Great post Ian, I was waiting for your perspective on this. I agree that tha states had no real right to remove Trump from the ballot and in doing so per state would be very civil war-esque. I also think the majority opinion should have withheld at siding with Trump without adding to future cases. Though in this case Colorado had no legal standing, maybe one day they will. Also the other side may one day need to do the same under different circumstances and we shouldn't have to rely on which team owns Congress at that point.

    Thanks for all the cool posts and blog throughout the semester. Best of luck to you sir.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more