On June 21, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court made a significant ruling that impacts the political landscape ahead of the upcoming election. The court decided in favor of former President Donald Trump, allowing him to stay on the ballot in Alabama for the November election. This decision comes amidst broader legal battles across the nation, as various courts wrestle with challenges aimed at disqualifying Trump based on claims associated with the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
The court’s unanimous ruling specifically addressed an effort from two voters in Montgomery County who sought to remove Trump from the ballot. They cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Their argument leaned heavily on the events of January 6, 2021, asserting that Trump incited the Capitol riot and should therefore be disqualified.
Yet the justices in Alabama were firm in their stance. Chief Justice Tom Parker noted that determining qualifications for federal office is not within the rights of state election officials. “The judiciary must tread carefully when asked to decide questions that intersect with the electoral process,” he elaborated. He highlighted that removing a major party candidate from the ballot is an extraordinary move, one that is not justified based on the current record.
This ruling aligns with recent decisions in other states, where courts have generally dismissed similar challenges. States like Michigan, Minnesota, and Arizona have ruled against attempts to disqualify Trump under the same constitutional provision. Although a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court sought to disqualify him, the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned that decision, clarifying that states cannot enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without Congressional action.
Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority opinion, stated clearly, “Only Congress may enforce Section 3 against federal office seekers.” This ruling has effectively halted a series of lawsuits aiming to remove Trump from ballots nationwide. It underscores that only Congress possesses the authority to interpret and apply such disqualifications, not state courts or election officials acting independently.
The Alabama case was initiated by two Democratic voters, John Smith and Thomas Radley, who claimed Trump’s actions related to the 2020 election and January 6 warrant disqualification. Represented by the advocacy group Free Speech for People, they argued that Trump’s behavior met the threshold for insurrection. However, Trump’s legal team countered that the events in question do not constitute insurrection legally and emphasized that any enforcement of disqualification should come from Congress.
Following the January 6 riot, over 1,400 people have been charged by federal authorities. However, Trump himself faces no insurrection charges; rather, his indictments relate to obstruction and conspiracy charges stemming from alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. As a result, opponents have turned to civil courts to explore disqualification under Section 3, though this avenue is now largely closed due to the Supreme Court’s March ruling.
Legal opinions on the matter are divided. Some experts argue that Trump’s conduct fits within the insurrection definition, while others maintain that a legal conviction or Congress’s explicit action is necessary for it to take effect. Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe views Section 3 as “self-executing,” implying it can be enforced without further legislative action. Conversely, Stanford Law’s Michael McConnell believes the clause is ineffective without federal enforcement mechanisms in place.
While the legal context remains murky, the political implications seem more apparent. With legal barriers to his candidacy diminished, Trump is set to appear on the ballot in all 50 states as long as Congress or the Supreme Court does not act otherwise. This clarity is a boost for his campaign, especially as the Republican National Convention approaches, potentially setting the stage for another matchup against the current President.
Polls suggest that the legal challenges have not significantly diminished Trump’s core support. A May 2024 Quinnipiac University poll found that 92% of Republicans viewed the disqualification attempts as politically motivated. Additionally, roughly 65% of respondents overall opposed removing Trump from the ballot without a criminal conviction. This sentiment could bolster voter turnout, particularly among older and working-class constituents who perceive the lawsuits as an unjust use of power.
Despite these legal wins, Trump continues to navigate a complex web of criminal cases. His trial in Washington, D.C., concerning allegations related to the 2020 election, awaits in September. This case, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, could result in serious penalties if Trump is convicted. However, as long as the issue of insurrection remains uncharged, states like Alabama are restricted from disqualifying Trump based on Section 3.
The Alabama ruling not only examines legal interpretations but also raises the question of the extent to which states can influence federal electoral laws. This decision contributes to a growing agreement among courts regarding the impracticality and illegality of state-by-state disqualification efforts in a federal election context.
As Chief Justice Parker remarked, “The Constitution establishes limits for a reason—chief among them, to ensure stability in the law.” Such stability is particularly crucial in electoral matters, where public trust is reliant on consistent legal processes. With Trump now secure on the electoral ballot nationwide, the focus shifts from legal proceedings to the campaign trail. Ultimately, it is the voters who will determine the outcome in November, not the courts.
"*" indicates required fields
