October Term 2023 · Docket 23-719

Can a state bar a former president from the ballot?

A former president claims a state cannot remove him from the ballot. The state argues the Constitution allows this removal.

Official caption
Trump v. Anderson
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  4. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The former president's lawyer argued the state court decision was wrong. He claimed the events were a riot, not an insurrection.

    The state's lawyer argued the former president incited violence. He stated the attack disrupted the transfer of power.

    Justice Sotomayor questioned the definition of self-executing provisions. She asked if states can provide causes of action.

    Justice Thomas asked the advocate to address the self-executing nature of the clause. He noted the advocate spent little time on this point.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the power of states to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. It asks if a state can disqualify a former president from office.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 8, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The former president wants the state court action undone. He seeks to appear on the ballot.

The state wants to keep the former president off the ballot. It seeks to enforce its court action.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The former president argues the state lacks power to remove him. He claims the events did not meet the legal definition of insurrection.

The state argues the Constitution allows it to act. It claims the former president incited a violent attack on the Capitol.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if states can create legal remedies for constitutional breaches.

Justice Thomas asked the advocate to explain if the provision is self-executing.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of state power over federal candidates. It shapes how states enforce constitutional oaths. It affects the integrity of the electoral process.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON