Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 10

10 

TRUMP v. ANDERSON 

Per Curiam 

U. S., at 826. 

Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Sec-
tion  3  with  respect  to  would-be  or  existing  federal  office-
holders.  Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Con-
gress  enacted  the  Enforcement  Act  of  1870.
  That  Act 
authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in 
federal  court  to  remove  anyone  holding  nonlegislative  of-
fice—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made 
holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 
a  federal  crime.  §§14,  15,  16  Stat.  143–144  (repealed,  35
Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993).  In the years following
ratification,  the  House  and  Senate  exercised  their  unique
powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending
that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take
or retain their seats due to Section 3.  See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 
2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives 
§§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907).  And the Confiscation Act 
of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an
additional  procedure  for  enforcing  disqualification.  That 
law  made  engaging  in  insurrection  or  rebellion,  among 
other  acts,  a  federal  crime  punishable  by  disqualification
from holding office under the United States.  See §§2, 3, 12 
Stat. 590.  A successor to those provisions remains on the 
books today.  See 18 U. S. C. §2383.

Moreover,  permitting  state  enforcement  of  Section  3 
against federal officeholders and candidates would raise se-
rious  questions  about  the  scope  of  that  power.    Section  5 
limits congressional legislation enforcing Section 3, because 
Section 5 is strictly “remedial.”  City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 
520.  To comply with that limitation, Congress “must tailor
its legislative scheme to remedying or preventing” the spe-
cific conduct the relevant provision prohibits.  Florida Pre-
paid  Postsecondary  Ed.  Expense  Bd.  v.  College  Savings 
Bank,  527  U. S.  627,  639  (1999).    Section  3,  unlike  other 
provisions  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  proscribes  con-
duct of individuals.  It bars persons from holding office after