Washington, D.C. – Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on Thursday, which ruled that Colorado could not disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban. Luttig, a conservative jurist from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, argued that all nine justices “dangerously betrayed” democracy by making this decision (The Atlantic). Advocacy groups and voters had filed numerous challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility in various states, citing his alleged involvement in the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, as grounds for disqualification (The Hill).
The Supreme Court’s ruling sided with Trump, asserting that it is the responsibility of Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment and disqualify federal candidates. Luttig, who had previously supported Colorado’s decision to bar Trump from the ballot, emphasized that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment serves as a “safety net for America’s democracy,” automatically disqualifying insurrectionists who break their oaths and deeming them unfit for public office unless Congress removes their disability (The Atlantic).
Luttig disagreed with the argument that disqualifying Trump from the ballot would be undemocratic. He stressed that it is the act of insurrection itself that goes against democratic principles, as explicitly stated in the Constitution. Luttig asserted that the failure to invoke the disqualification clause in the past should not be interpreted as a decline in its relevance but as an indication of its success in deterring dangerous assaults on the government until now (The Atlantic).
Having submitted an amicus brief in the case, Luttig reiterated his core arguments in favor of upholding Colorado’s decision. He criticized the Supreme Court for failing to interpret the Constitution as written and instead cementing its image as a political institution. Luttig expressed his disappointment in the Court’s decision coming at a critical moment in the nation’s constitutional and political history when the country relied on it to address the toxic intersection of law and politics (The Atlantic).
In summary, retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig strongly condemned the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision allowing former President Trump to remain eligible for re-election. Luttig argued that the Court betrayed democracy by not disqualifying insurrectionists under the 14th Amendment and emphasized the importance of the disqualification clause in protecting America’s democracy. He criticized the Court for failing to interpret the Constitution as written and solidifying its political image instead. Luttig’s rebuke raises questions about the intersection of law and politics and the Court’s role in upholding democracy (The Atlantic).