--- title: The Supreme Court's Confused Ruling on the Trump Ballot Case description: The Supreme Court's confused ruling on the Trump disqualification case raises more questions about partisanship. canonical: https://time.com/6837636/donald-trump-supreme-court/ author: Aziz Huq article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2024-03-04T21:50:53.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-10-19T07:40:14.070Z article:section: Ideas og:title: The Supreme Court's Confused Ruling on the Trump Ballot Case og:description: The Supreme Court's confused ruling on the Trump disqualification case raises more questions about partisanship. og:url: https://time.com/6837636/donald-trump-supreme-court/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt71856428d882e733/698a491c16d8840600c3d452/GettyImages-2051569215.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: Former President Donald Trump Speaks At Mar-a-Lago In Florida og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: The Supreme Court's Confused Ruling on the Trump Ballot Case twitter:description: The Supreme Court's confused ruling on the Trump disqualification case raises more questions about partisanship. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt71856428d882e733/698a491c16d8840600c3d452/GettyImages-2051569215.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # The Supreme Court's Confused Ruling on the Trump Ballot Case > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=163eac01-961b-4d6f-acf0-0622e12a90e2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=163eac01-961b-4d6f-acf0-0622e12a90e2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=163eac01-961b-4d6f-acf0-0622e12a90e2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=163eac01-961b-4d6f-acf0-0622e12a90e2&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) ## Video: Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Kick Trump Off Ballot [Watch (HLS stream): Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Kick Trump Off Ballot](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/vlnkDZXp.m3u8) (3:44)  _Published 2024-03-04. The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that states cannot remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election ballot, overturning a Colorado court ruling that said he was ineligible to run for office because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack._ by [Aziz Huq](https://time.com/author/aziz-huq/) ## Aziz Huq Mar 4, 2024 9:50 PM UTC The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that states cannot remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election ballot, overturning a Colorado court ruling that said he was ineligible to run for office because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack. by [Aziz Huq](https://time.com/author/aziz-huq/) ## Aziz Huq Mar 4, 2024 9:50 PM UTC The Supreme Court showed it can act with speed by [allowing Trump](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-supreme-court-ruling-allowing-donald-trump-on-to-the-2024-presidential-ballot) to continue his presidential campaign and punching down states’ ability to disqualify insurrectionist candidates. Indeed, the Court showed it could do so even on hard constitutional questions. Its decision, however, only exacerbates questions about the Court’s reasons for acting—questions that will deepen doubts about the Justices’ even-handedness and freedom from partisan tugs. Doubts are sewn both by the timing and the content of the recent decision on disqualification. The Court added a date to its ordinary calendar just for the purpose of issuing this opinion, plainly heeding Trump’s demands for resolution before Super Tuesday. It also issued a short (for the Justices) unsigned opinion that bespeaks a rapid work-effort. But while it heeded Trump’s demands for speedy resolution on the disqualification question, the Court has repeatedly declined to expedite Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for prompt resolution of the question whether Trump is [immune](https://time.com/6691929/trump-not-immune-prosecution-2020-election/) from criminal prosecution. That question is, in truth, much easier to resolve than the disqualification question (in brief, [no](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-insignificance-of-trump-s-immunity-from-prosecution-argument)). Yet the Court has dragged its heels in ways that enable Trump’s efforts to delay the criminal justice system’s operation—perhaps right up to or beyond the election. We often judge others by how they spend their limited time and money. These decisions about how to allocate scare resources cast direct light on their character. The Justices’ decisions about when to hurry, and when to lollygag, are impossible to understand without attending to the partisan overtones of the cases. Crudely started, it appears that the Court hurries when Trump demands it, and brakes when he says brake. Substance follows method. When it comes to the substance of this week’s disqualification decision, the unanimity of the bottom line can’t hide an embarrassing series of logical jumps needed to make the issue of disqualification go away for Trump—at least for the time being. To begin with, the unsigned opinion rests upon the idea that only Congress can say how disqualification occurs. Yet, as the Court itself concedes, the text and history of the relevant constitutional language of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment are plainly inconsistent with that notion. It is settled history that those disqualified by dint of participation in the Confederacy did not have to await exclusion under a federal statute: They were disqualified automatically. If, as a matter of original understanding, Section 3 disqualification was automatic, why is there a need for Congress to set forth a procedure? It’s not that the Justices don’t know the historical facts: The opinion cites approving a 1868 instance of a putative House member from Georgia, who was treated as ineligible by both state and federal officials without a statute coming into play. Worse, what the Court goes on to say about _how_ Congress can act is internally contradictory. On the one hand, the majority suggests that “congressional legislation” is needed for disqualification. On the other hand, the opinion picks out and approvingly discusses two cases in which a single chamber of Congress considered whether to disqualify a potential legislator—without relying on any law being passed. So can a chamber of Congress, acting through its election-related functions rather than by enacting a statute, disqualify Trump? Original understandings and history cited approvingly by the Court suggest it can—but the Court at least hints otherwise. This confusion matters because the Court expressly refuses to say anything about whether Trump did, in fact, trigger disqualification on January 6 or its runup. So the question whether he is a lawful candidate remains undecided. By suggesting that “congressional legislation” is needed to complete his disqualification, however, the Court overrides Section 3’s original understanding—that disqualification is automatic—and leaves the matter in Congress, _knowing full well Congress won’t act via a new law_. The result is, alas, something of a blueprint for allowing insurrectionists to run for office. Across these arguments, a supposedly “originalist” Court—including the most vehemently purist of Justices when it comes to method—repeatedly plays fast and loose with the originalist evidence and arguments that they elsewhere treat as binding. They instead lean on arguments from consequences that they mock and pillory in other contexts, such as recent Second Amendment caselaw. If there is one immediate casualty from today’s ruling, it may well be the originalist Justices’ reputations for acting in consistent and principled ways. What then is going on, if the decision is not the result of the Justices’ legal commitments? A separate opinion from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson decries the majority opinion’s passages on Congress’s role as an effort to “insulate this Court and petitioner \[Trump\] from future controversy.” This is an incendiary sentence—one that will, once digested, add fuel to the deepening skepticism about the Court’s willingness or ability to stand above the partisan fray. In effect, the concurring Justices are saying, the Court reached out to decide an issue that was not before the Court—and then it did so in a way that was driven in part by a desire to protect a particular political candidate. Setting aside the fact that this candidate is in court because he tried to derail the lawful counting of 2020 ballots by illegal means, the concurrence is suggesting that the other Justices (all appointed by Republican presidents) are acting to favor the candidate sailing under their partisan flag. Perhaps as troubling, the concurrence suggests that the Court is doing so because it is conflating its interests in dodging “future controversies” with that of the likely Republican candidate. What’s good for Trump, the majority is said to believe, is good for the Court. It is an identification that is possible only if one thinks that the Constitution itself takes a stand in favor of one partisan faction, and an insurrectionist one at that. When put alongside its speed and timing, the disqualification decision casts only deeper shade on the Court’s supposed ability to stand above the partisan divide—as opposed to digging in on just one side. However one things the disqualification issue ought to have been handled, it is hard to see how anyone but a partisan absolutist can take comfort from this opinion. ## Transcript [00:00] Thank you very much. [00:01] I want to start by thanking the Supreme Court for its unanimous [00:06] decision today. It was a very important decision were very well-crafted [00:10] and I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country [00:15] together with your country days and they work long. [00:21] They worked hard and frankly, they work very quickly on something [00:25] that will be spoken about 100 years from now and two hundred [00:29] years from now extremely important essentially you cannot [00:33] take somebody out of a race because Nick would like to have [00:37] it that way and it has nothing to do with the fact that it's [00:41] the leading candidate whether it was the leading candidate [00:43] or a candidate. [00:44] That was well down. [00:46] On the totem pole you cannot take somebody out of a race. [00:49] The voters can take a person out of there is very quickly, [00:53] but a court shouldn't be doing that in the Supreme Court so that [00:57] very well and I really do believe that will be a unifying [01:00] Factor because while Most states were thrilled to have me and [01:06] there were some that I didn't and they didn't want that for political [01:10] reasons. I didn't want that because our poll numbers cuz the [01:13] phone numbers are very good. [01:14] We're beating President Biden and almost every pole New York [01:19] Times came out yesterday with a very big hole for a selfie. [01:24] They didn't like that and you can't do that can do what they [01:28] tried to do and while we're on the subject and another thing [01:31] that will be coming up very soon. [01:32] We'll be immunity for president did not immunity for me, [01:36] but for any president if the president doesn't have full immunity, [01:40] you really don't have a president because nobody that is serving [01:45] in that office. [01:46] Will have the courage to make in many cases. [01:49] What would be the right decision or could be the wrong decision? [01:52] It could be in some cases the wrong decision, [01:54] but they have to make decisions and they have to make them free [01:59] of all Terra is that can be rained upon them when they leave [02:03] office or even before they leave office President Biden number [02:07] one, stop weaponization fight your fight yourself don't use prosecutors [02:14] and judges to go after your phone into dry and damaged your [02:17] opponent. So you can win an election our country is much bigger [02:20] than that. The other thing I say to President Biden [02:26] Close the borders now. [02:28] This is not sustainable for our country. [02:31] It's not sustainable for our cities. [02:35] A country is under siege closed the borders. [02:38] You can do it right. [02:38] Now. You have everything use my policies. [02:41] My policies were great. [02:42] Everybody said it use my policies. [02:45] So just to finish I have great respect for [02:50] The Supreme Court and I want to just thank them for working [02:55] so quickly and so diligently and so brilliantly and again, [03:00] this is a unifying Factor. [03:02] So I just want to thank all of you for being here. [03:05] I think it's a very big day for America. [03:08] I think it's a very big day for Liberty and I think it's just [03:12] a great day for this country again. [03:15] I hope it's unifying like I think but it is it's a big step [03:18] toward unification. I hope that the justices because I'll be working [03:23] on some other cases but one in particular presidents have to be [03:27] given total immunity. [03:28] They have to be allowed to do their job if they're not allowed [03:33] to do their job. [03:35] It's not what the founders wanted, but perhaps even more importantly [03:38] it will be terrible for our country. [03:41] Thank you all very much. [03:42] I appreciate it. [03:43] Thank you. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/6837636/donald-trump-supreme-court/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/6837636/donald-trump-supreme-court/"},"headline":"The Supreme Court's Confused Ruling on the Trump Ballot Case","datePublished":"2024-03-04T21:50:53.000Z","dateModified":"2026-10-19T07:40:14.070Z","description":"The Supreme Court's confused ruling on the Trump disqualification case raises more questions about partisanship.","url":"https://time.com/6837636/donald-trump-supreme-court/","keywords":["Donald Trump","freelance"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt71856428d882e733/698a491c16d8840600c3d452/GettyImages-2051569215.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Aziz Huq","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/aziz-huq/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt71856428d882e733/698a491c16d8840600c3d452/GettyImages-2051569215.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Former President Donald Trump Speaks At Mar-a-Lago In Florida","caption":"Former President Donald Trump Speaks At Mar-a-Lago In Florida","creditText":"Alon Skuy-Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/tag/donald-trump/","name":"Donald Trump"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/6837636/donald-trump-supreme-court/","name":"The Supreme Court's Confused Ruling on the Trump Ballot Case"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Kick Trump Off Ballot","description":"The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that states cannot remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election ballot, overturning a Colorado court ruling that said he was ineligible to run for office because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/vlnkDZXp/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2024-03-04T19:51:12.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/vlnkDZXp.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/6837636/donald-trump-supreme-court/","duration":"PT3M44S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/6837636/donald-trump-supreme-court/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```