Former President Donald Trump's name appears certain to remain on the ballot in Illinois, after a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado Supreme Court that a Cook County judge had relied upon to justify her decision that Illinois voters should not have the right to vote for Trump because of his alleged role as a so-called "insurrectionist."
On March 4, on the eve of the Super Tuesday primary elections across much of the country, all of the justices of the nation's highest court, conservatives and liberals alike, agreed that the Colorado Supreme Court - and, by extension, Cook County Judge Tracie Porter - had overstepped their authority under the U.S. Constitution in disqualifying Trump from running for President in Colorado and Illinois.
In the unsigned "per curiam" ruling, the unanimous high court declared agreement that nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment gave individual states the authority to block a person from running for President, including Section 3 of that amendment, which generally forbids anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United State government from holding elected office, including the presidency.
Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter
| Cookcountydems.com/
They noted states can and have used their power under the Fourteenth Amendment to block people from seeking state elected offices.
But the court declared that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, only the Congress has the power to take action, by a two-thirds vote, to block so-called "insurrectionists" from seeking federal office.
"... The notion that the Constitution grants the States freer rein than Congress to decide how Section 3 should be enforced with respect to federal offices is simply implausible," the court wrote in the unanimous opinion.
The justices further noted that allowing states to determine who is and is not eligible to run for President, on a state-by-state basis, would lead to wildly varying interpretations of how and when to disqualify candidates under the Fourteenth Amendment, and invite political chaos and unrest.
The court particularly noted a scenario in which political opponents of the perceived winner of the presidential election could move to nullify the election results by winning judgments in state court that the winner was ineligible under the Fourteenth Amendment after voting had concluded and a winner was certified.
"Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos - arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration," the justices wrote.
The decision overturned the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, which in a 4-3 ruling along partisan lines, formally declared their opinion that Trump should be considered an "insurrectionist" for allegedly encouraging the Capitol Hill riots of Jan. 6, 2021, and then finding that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment gave that state and other individual states the authority to block voters from casting ballots in support of Trump. The Colorado ruling was the first in the nation on numerous challenges to Trump's candidacy, which were filed on novel constitutional theory that any elected official determined by a court to have participated or encouraged the Jan. 6 riots could be blocked from ever seeking or holding office in the U.S under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
That Colorado ruling, in turn, formed much of the basis of the Feb. 28 ruling from Cook County Judge Tracie Porter, who had similarly declared that Trump should be disqualified from the Illinois ballot.
Porter had placed her decision on hold, pending appeal of her decision or a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Colorado case.
Porter's ruling had come after objectors to Trump's candidacy in the 2024 election had appealed a decision from the Illinois State Board of Elections. In January, the ISBE had determined in lacked authority to address the question of whether Trump could be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the ruling, Porter declared she agreed with the Democratic majority on the Colorado Supreme Court that no action by Congress on the question of whether someone had engaged in "insurrection" is needed for courts to apply Amendment 14, Section 3 to a candidate like Trump. Rather, Porter said that section should be considered "self-executing," and state courts held the authority to determine the veracity of the allegations.
As such, she said a court's determination that a candidate has engaged in "insurrection" is no different than determining that a candidate doesn't meet other constitutional qualifications to hold office, such as citizenship, residency and age.
"This Court concludes that the goal of determining the meaning and application of Section 3 excludes from office as punishment to leaders who swore an oath to protect, defend and uphold the constitution, that such provision is self-executing, and that Section 3 is a qualification requirement used to consider to disqualify a candidate for the office of President of the United States," Porter wrote on Feb. 28.
Porter had further ruled that Trump should be disqualified under Illinois law, because, in her opinion, Trump did not truthfully swear on election papers filed with the ISBE that he was allowed by law to hold office. Judge Porter specifically cited both the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling and the findings of congressional Democrats in their hearings concerning the Jan. 6, 2021, riots. Republicans have decried those hearings as a partisan sham.
Trump's campaign had appealed that decision to the Illinois First District Appellate Court.
Porter has served on the Cook County Circuit Court since 2021, when she was appointed to the post by the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court. She then won endorsement from the Cook County Democratic Party led by Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, helping to propel her to a 2022 election win and a full six-year term on the Cook County bench.
She is now assigned to the Cook County Circuit Court's County Division, where she hears tax, property and election-related cases, including challenges to candidate eligibility for office.
Attorney Adam Merrill, who is representing Trump in the Illinois case, did not immediately respond to questions from The Cook County Record concerning the Supreme Court's ruling.