In their critical analysis of Trump v. Anderson, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen argue that the U.S. Supreme Court mishandled a pivotal constitutional case with far-reaching implications.
The case questioned whether Donald Trump, following the January 6 Capitol attack, was disqualified from the presidency under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court narrowly ruled that states lack the power to enforce constitutional disqualifications, sidestepping substantive issues like whether Trump’s actions constituted “insurrection.”
The authors contend that the decision was a missed opportunity to clarify Section Three’s application and undermines foundational principles of constitutional law.
They criticize the ruling as incoherent and politically evasive, failing to address Trump’s eligibility while leaving significant legal questions unresolved.
The commentary explores the case’s broader implications for originalism, judicial motivations, and potential future conflicts, emphasizing that the Court’s avoidance only delayed a constitutional reckoning.
