"In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court remained silent on whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not, but instead solely determined that states did not have the authority under Section 3 to disqualify federal candidates."
5-4
"While the court spoke in a united voice in its decision that states did not have the authority to disqualify federal candidates under Section 3, four justices dissented from the decision’s assertion that Section 3 could only be enforced by congressional legislation.
“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President,” a concurrence from liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson states. “Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.”
In addition, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued her own concurrence stating that the case “does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.”
