Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 19

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

5 

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

It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disabil-
ity in Section 3.

The majority is left with next to no support for its require-
ment that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursu-
ant to legislation enacted for that purpose.  It cites Griffin’s 
Case, but that is a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by
a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge.  See ante, 
at  5  (quoting  11  F. Cas.,  at  26).  Once  again,  even  peti-
tioner’s lawyer distanced himself from fully embracing this 
case  as  probative  of  Section  3’s  meaning.  See  Tr.  of  Oral 
Arg.  35–36.   The  majority  also  cites  Senator  Trumbull’s
statements that Section 3 “ ‘provide[d] no means for enforc-
ing’ ” itself.  Ante, at 5 (quoting Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st 
Sess., 626 (1869)).  The majority, however, neglects to men-
tion  the  Senator’s  view  that  “[i]t  is  the  [F]ourteenth
[A]mendment that prevents a person from holding office,” 
with the proposed legislation simply “affor[ding] a more ef-
ficient  and  speedy  remedy”  for  effecting  the  disqualifica-
tion.  Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626–627. 

Ultimately,  under  the  guise  of  providing  a  more  “com-
plete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the major-
ity resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3.  It 
forecloses  judicial  enforcement  of  that  provision,  such  as 
might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrection-
ist and raises a defense on that score.  The majority further
holds  that  any  legislation  to  enforce  this  provision  must 
prescribe certain procedures “ ‘tailor[ed]’ ” to Section 3, ante, 
at  10,  ruling  out  enforcement  under  general  federal  stat-
utes requiring the government to comply with the law.  By
resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts
to  insulate  all  alleged  insurrectionists  from  future  chal-
lenges to their holding federal office. 

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.” 

* 

* 

*