Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

3 

SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in judgment 

. . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.’ ”  Ante, at 11 
(quoting Anderson, 460 U. S., at 795).  That is especially so, 
the majority adds, because different States can reach “[c]on-
flicting . . . outcomes concerning the same candidate . . . not 
just from differing views of the merits, but from variations
in state law governing the proceedings” to enforce Section
3.  Ante, at 11. 

The  contrary  conclusion  that  a  handful  of  officials  in  a 
few States could decide the Nation’s next President would 
be especially surprising with respect to Section 3.  The Re-
construction Amendments “were specifically designed as an 
expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sover-
eignty.”  City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179 
(1980).  Section  3  marked  the  first  time  the  Constitution 
placed  substantive  limits  on  a  State’s  authority  to  choose 
its own officials.  Given that context, it would defy logic for 
Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may
hold the Presidency.  Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongru-
ous  to  read  this  particular  Amendment  as  granting  the
States  the  power—silently  no  less—to  disqualify  a  candi-
date for federal office”).

That provides a secure and sufficient basis to resolve this 
case.  To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off
the  ballot  under  Section  3  would  imperil  the Framers’  vi-
sion  of  “a  Federal  Government  directly  responsible  to  the
people.”  U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 821.  The Court 
should have started and ended its opinion with this conclu-
sion. 

II 

Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before 
us.  In  a  case  involving  no  federal  action  whatsoever,  the
Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must
proceed.  Congress, the majority says, must enact legisla-
tion under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “ ‘ “ascer-
tain[ ] what particular individuals” ’ ” should be disqualified.