I’m missing something. Doesn’t this morning’s ruling insulate Trump from being kicked off the general election ballot as well (short of some unspecified Congressional action)?
I’d say it will stay as it does now. I haven’t read the decision but I suspect the issue is on states deciding issues of Federal eligibility and the hodge-podge it created.
The ruling specifically mentions that Congress decides on federal issues, states on state issues.
It appears that they are trying to keep one state deciding for all states.
The ruling explicitly says the states have the authority over state offices under “reserved powers”.
Yes, that’s the 50+1 if Congress takes action. But I think the problem is they already did with his acquittal on the second impeachment.
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the court wrote. “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”
It’s not really a 9-0 opinion. 5 justices (and probably 6) decided that Trump cannot be barred from office unless Congress passes a law enforcing Section 3.
The 3 liberals (and maybe ACB) only decided that a State court cannot enforce Section 3 for federal offices.
The 5 cut off the possibility of a Federal case attempting to enforce Section 3 after Trump is elected but before he takes office.
Very clever making it seem like that part was unanimous when it was actually extremely partisan.
ETA: The concurrence in party by Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson is exactly right. There was no reason for SCOTUS to opine that Section 3 requires federal legislation for enforcement. It was not an issue in this case, and the only reason to include it in the opinion was to insulate Trump for political attack.
Opinion here, if anybody is looking for a direct link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
No the problem is that the GOP controls the House. The chances of Federal legislation enforcing Section 3 are less than zero (I say less than zero because I could totally see them trying to pass legislation saying that failures to secure the border are insurrection but trying to take over Congress with a mob isn’t).
My take would be that they’re saying that Congress needs to make a law that gives the specifics of how this all works.
Could a D-controlled Congress pass a law between January 3rd and January 20th keeping Trump from being inaugurated?
I mean, possibly. But it would be filibustered in the Senate.
And I struggle to think of a scenario in which Congress would feel empowered to overrule the will of the people after the fact to bar from office the President-elect. At some point, if the people want a dictator they will get a dictator. That’s the fundamental flaw in a Republic.
And ACB’s concurrence says:
“I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case and I would decide no more than that.”
She declines to take a side on the matter of “who is then supposed to do what” stating this is not the time/place to “amplify disagreement”.
Since the prohibition is that no officer may “hold” office, presumably Congress could find that he engaged in insurrection even after he’s inaugurated and he would be removed.
That does raise the question whether enforcement requires legislation (which is subject to veto) or can be done through a concurrent resolution of Congress (which is not).
Remember all of you giving me crap because I said SCOTUS would find Section 5 was already implemented in 18 USC 2383? Well I win! 
Page 11 of the decision
Any congressional legislation enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870 and §2383,
Just read the decision.
To me, Yes.
And by their logic, a R-controlled congress could pass a law saying that the entire 14th amendment is null and void.
They imply that there is something about Section 3 that maybe makes it less self-executing than Sections 1, 2, and 4. But that makes no sense to me.
Roberts probably wanted the appearance of a 9-0 decision, and got it. But on the central issue of whether the 14th amendment is self-executing, five of them think no, and three or four of them think yes.
This.
What it comes down to is that it’ll only be enforced against someone whose party doesn’t hold either the House or the Senate. That isn’t what it might have meant 50 years ago; but that’s what it means now.
Quite possibly; but they’re not going to do so now, because I doubt you’d get the Senate to agree to anything that the House would.
If we get a blue sweep, we might get legislation before 2028; but we’d have to get the blue sweep first, without it, this year. If we get a red sweep, they’ll either write nothing, or write something that allows Republicans to block other parties’ candidates but not vice versa. The Supremes of course shouldn’t allow the latter, but who knows? And in any case the current Republicans won’t write anything that would disallow Trump.
I’m pretty sure that they’d have to do that by impeaching him again. Even if Trump gets elected but the Democrats take back the House, the chances of getting enough Democratic seats in the Senate to pull that off are nil.
Can someone even be impeached twice for the same crime or would the idea of double-jeopardy be extended to cover impeachments?
This ruling was just what was expected.
Impeachment is not a criminal trial, so double jeopardy does not apply.
How? Who would have the power to remove him once he’s sworn in?
AFAIK, he could only be removed by impeachment or invoking the 25th amendment.