Legal experts rally around Supreme Court ruling keeping Trump on ballot: ‘Stern warning’ to ‘radicals’

Legal experts rally around Supreme Court ruling keeping Trump on ballot: ‘Stern warning’ to ‘radicals’

Reactions from legal experts are pouring in after the Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of former President Trump and against the effort to remove him from the Colorado ballot for allegedly taking part in an ‘insurrection.’

‘The Court showed a divided nation that we remain bound by shared constitutional values,’ George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley said on Fox News immediately after the decision was read, adding that this was a ‘critical moment for this court in history.’

‘After all of the years we have spent in this Republic we came to a point where these states claimed that they could unilaterally bar the leading presidential candidate from ballots to prevent people from voting for Donald Trump,’ Turley said. ‘The court here struck with a strong, and it appears unanimous, voice at least on the result that that’s not going to happen. Voters will vote. They’ll make their own verdict regardless of cases that happen involving President Trump. They will cast the most important verdict of all. They will vote for the next President of the United States.’

‘So much for the long list of people who weighed in on this case to declare that Colorado’s position was the only constitutionally acceptable one and suggesting that any idiot could see that,’ Judicial Network President Carrie Severino posted on X. 

‘Obviously, they were not making legal arguments, but political ones.’

Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, told Fox News Digital that the ‘unanimous Supreme Court got it right.’

‘States can’t create a patchwork of ways for disqualifying candidates for federal office,’ Shapiro added. ‘There’s disagreement among the justices about which federal actors can do so, and according to which procedures, so perhaps it would be a good idea for Congress to clarify these issues by enacting a new version of the Enforcement Act of 1870.’

‘But regardless, in a polarized time of record-low societal trust in institutions, it’s a good thing that voters will decide whether Donald Trump can return to the White House, not Colorado’s supreme court, Maine’s secretary of state, or any other state or local officials.’

‘The Supreme Court justices brought order to what could have become a chaotic election season by shutting down this partisan, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional effort in Colorado,’ Heritage Foundation legal fellows Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson wrote in a press release. ‘They found a ‘combination’ of constitutional grounds that ‘resolves this case,’ and that explains why the Colorado court got it wrong.’

‘Activist courts and partisan bureaucrats should not be able to take away American voters’ right to choose the president. This ruling, which came together with amazing speed for the Supreme Court, should serve as a stern warning that radicals cannot interfere in our election process and, as the justices say in the opinion, ‘nullify the votes of millions and change the election result.’’

All nine justices ruled in favor of Trump in the case, which will impact the status of efforts in several other states to remove the likely GOP nominee from their respective ballots. 

The court considered for the first time the meaning and reach of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officeholders who ‘engaged in insurrection’ from holding public office again. Challenges have been filed to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot in over 30 states. 

‘We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,’ the Court wrote.

‘A great win for America. Very, very important!’ Trump told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview Monday morning. 

‘Equally important for our country will be the decision that they will soon make on immunity for a president — without which, the presidency would be relegated to nothing more than a ceremonial position, which is far from what the founders intended,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘No president would be able to properly and effectively function without complete and total immunity.’ 

He added, ‘Our country would be put at great risk.’ 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report