Supreme Court Unanimously Allows Trump to Run in Colorado Primary, Deep Divisions Emerge over Abortion, Guns, and Federal Power

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow former President Trump to run in the Republican presidential primary in the western U.S. state of Colorado was handed down unanimously by all nine justices, but the recent ruling regarding abortion, guns, and the power of the federal government As with other major cases, the individual opinions revealed deep divisions among the justices. Pictured are Supreme Court justices. Photographed in Washington, October 2022 (2024 Reuters/Evelyn Hockstein)

[５日 ロイター] – The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow former President Trump to run in the Republican presidential primary in the western U.S. state of Colorado was a unanimous decision by all nine justices, but the decision concerns abortion, guns, and the power of the federal government. As with major cases in recent years, the individual opinions revealed deep divisions among the justices.

Four of the justices (three liberals and one new judge) disagreed with the five conservative justices, and Edward Foley, an election law expert at Ohio State University, said, “There are disagreements over the reasons for the decision.” There’s no doubt about it.”

The Supreme Court held that “states are not responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which disqualifies federal government officials and candidates, particularly the president, from running for office,” and that responsibility rests solely with Congress. did.See more

All the justices agreed that it would avoid a “patchwork” of candidates being disqualified in some states but not in others.

However, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in separate opinions that Section 14.3 can only be enforced through federal law. criticized the other five judges who had stipulated that Such legislation is highly unlikely given the deep partisan divisions in Congress.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented from the majority’s “superfluous” decision, which sought to resolve “something other than the case at hand.”

Although Justice Barrett agreed that the five justices’ rulings went too far, she noted that it was an election year and expressed displeasure with the liberals’ choice of words.

Our code of conduct:Thomson Reuters “Principles of Trust”, opens new tab

#Supreme #Court #decision #Trump #run #reveals #deep #divisions #individual #opinions
2024-03-06 02:18:37