Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 8

8 

TRUMP v. ANDERSON 

Per Curiam 

provisions of the Amendment against the States.  It would 
be  incongruous  to  read  this  particular  Amendment  as
granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqual-
ify a candidate for federal office.

The only other plausible constitutional sources of such a
delegation  are  the  Elections  and  Electors  Clauses,  which 
authorize States to conduct and regulate congressional and
Presidential  elections,  respectively.    See  Art.  I,  §4,  cl. 1; 
Art. II,  §1,  cl. 2.1   But  there  is  little  reason  to  think  that 
these Clauses implicitly authorize the States to enforce Sec-
tion 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.  Grant-
ing the States that authority would invert the Fourteenth 
Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power.

The text of Section 3 reinforces these conclusions.  Its fi-
nal sentence empowers Congress to “remove” any Section 3
“disability” by a two-thirds vote of each house.  The text im-
poses no limits on that power, and Congress may exercise it
any  time,  as  the  respondents  concede.  See  Brief  for  Re-
spondents 50.  In fact, historically, Congress sometimes ex-
ercised  this  amnesty  power  postelection  to  ensure  that 
some  of  the  people’s  chosen  candidates  could  take  office.2 
But if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring can-
didates from running in the first place, Congress would be 

—————— 

1 The  Elections  Clause  directs,  in  relevant  part,  that  “[t]he  Times, 
Places  and  Manner  of  holding  Elections  for  Senators  and  Representa-
tives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”  Art. 
I,  §4,  cl. 1.    The  Electors  Clause  similarly  provides  that  “[e]ach  State 
shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a 
Number of Electors,” who in turn elect the President.  Art. II, §1, cl. 2. 

2 Shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, for instance, 
Congress enacted a private bill to remove the Section 3 disability of Nel-
son Tift of Georgia, who had recently been elected to represent the State
in Congress.  See ch. 393, 15 Stat. 427.  Tift took his seat in Congress 
immediately  thereafter.    See  Cong.  Globe,  40th  Cong., 2d  Sess.,  4499– 
4500 (1868).  Congress similarly acted postelection to remove the disa-
bilities of persons elected to state and local offices.  See Cong. Globe, 40th
Cong., 3d Sess., 29–30, 120–121 (1868); ch. 5, 15 Stat. 435–436.