Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

Cite as:  601 U. S. ____ (2024) 

11 

Per Curiam 

taking a qualifying oath and then engaging in insurrection
or rebellion—nothing more.  Any congressional legislation
enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870 
and  §2383,  reflect  “congruence  and  proportionality”  be-
tween  preventing  or  remedying  that  conduct  “and  the 
means adopted to that end.”  City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 
520.  Neither we nor the respondents are aware of any other
legislation by Congress to enforce Section 3.  See Tr. of Oral 
Arg. 123.

Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal office-
holders and candidates, though, would not derive from Sec-
tion 5, which confers power only on “[t]he Congress.”  As a 
result,  such  state  enforcement  might  be  argued  to  sweep
more broadly than congressional enforcement could under
our precedents.  But 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.

Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the
Presidency would raise heightened concerns.  “[I]n the con-
text  of  a  Presidential  election,  state-imposed  restrictions
implicate a uniquely important national interest.”  Ander-
son  v.  Celebrezze,  460  U. S.  780,  794–795  (1983)  (footnote 
omitted).  But  state-by-state  resolution  of  the  question
whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President 
from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform an-
swer consistent with the basic principle that “the President 
. . .  represent[s]  all  the  voters  in  the  Nation.”    Id.,  at  795 
(emphasis added).

Conflicting  state  outcomes  concerning  the  same  candi-
date could result not just from differing views of the merits, 
but from variations in state law governing the proceedings
that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification deter-
minations.  Some States might allow a Section 3 challenge 
to succeed based on a preponderance of the evidence, while