The Trump Ballot Case Is This Generation’s Brown v. Board of Education

The 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution, forged in the wake of the Civil War, effectuated what many historians called a Second Founding of our nation. The Reconstruction amendments, including the 14^th Amendment, created foundational protections to American democracy, including ending chattel slavery, guaranteeing birthright citizenship, extending equal protection under the law, establishing Black men’s right to vote, and barring from public office those who betray their oath to the Constitution by engaging in insurrection against it.

Ensuring that government actors adhere to these protections has fallen repeatedly to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the most consequential decision in this regard was Brown v. Board of Education—the unanimous 1954 ruling that state-sanctioned segregation in public schools violated the 14^th Amendment’s right to equal protection. Although the decision was supported by a small majority of the country, it was met with violent opposition from a sizable minority of segregationists inside and outside the government. The backlash required President Dwight D. Eisenhower to deploy federal troops to Arkansas, and the Supreme Court to unanimously reaffirm in Cooper v. Aaron that its “interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment … in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land,” with “binding effect on the States.”

Now the Supreme Court is facing another inflection point to consider democratic protections. On Thursday, the justices will hear arguments in Trump v. Anderson, to consider whether to uphold Donald Trump’s disqualification from office given the Colorado Supreme Court’s finding that he engaged in an insurrection by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. As the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which famously litigated Brown, argued in a friend of the court brief filed in Anderson, the “Reconstruction Amendments were enacted to ensure that the worst abuses in our nation’s history are not repeated and to achieve the fullest ideals of our democracy. But those Amendments are effective only when those responsible for applying them have the courage to do so.”

Of course, millions of Americans would be disappointed or even infuriated if Trump is removed from the ballot. Some may even turn to violence. But that threat is obvious given the former president’s incitement of violence after his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s supporters continue to threaten violence in his name, and without condemnation by the candidate. In his briefs before the Supreme Court, Trump has threatened “bedlam” if he is kept off the ballot, but the bedlam he provoked on Jan. 6 is how we got here—and why he is disqualified by the Constitution from serving as president again.

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court affirms Trump’s disqualification, states have different mechanisms for handling whether disqualified presidential candidates are allowed to be listed on the ballot. Certainly, some Trump-friendly state officials might also try to ignore, or nullify, any wider ruling removing Trump from the ballot and barring the counting of write-in votes for him, as the Supreme Court of Colorado has ordered under state law. But as the Supreme Court confirmed in Cooper v. Aaron, its interpretation of the Constitution will be the final word on the matter. And federal officials—not the states—are charged with formalizing the results of a presidential election. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the president, it will undoubtedly lead to additional litigation in state and federal courts across the country to effectuate the decision, but the end result wouldn’t change—he cannot be sworn in on Jan. 20, 2025. Period.

In any event, bowing to threats of chaos or nullification means ignoring the text and the purpose of Section 3. The Constitution protects our democracy from attacks on the rule of law—even and perhaps especially if they are popular. Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment was specifically designed as a defense mechanism to prevent oath-breaking insurrectionists from undoing the nation’s Second Founding that America paid for in the blood of our countrymen. Allowing fear of potential backlash to forestall enforcement of the 14^th Amendment in this moment would be to cede our democracy to mob rule—just as Trump attempted on Jan. 6.

If the Supreme Court allowed concerns about civil unrest or violence to deter enforcement of the Constitution, especially the 14^th Amendment, then Black Americans and millions of others would never have secured the rights enshrined after the Civil War. Brown provoked immediate backlash from many white Americans, including violence, riots, and the founding of segregation academies throughout the South—with effects still seen today. Because the court did not cower in the face of this resistance, our country continued forward on the path toward a more just and democratic society.

Our highest court exists to interpret the Constitution, and our Constitution ensures that the fundamental rights of our democracy persist in the face of popular resistance or recalcitrant political leaders that threaten violence, civil unrest, or nullification. The rule of law must abide—even in the face of popular political figures or popular resistance. As conservative scholars have noted, Donald Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, and thus became president only because of the Constitution and the Electoral College. Now, when the Constitution threatens his political future, Trump argues that it need not apply.

Brown and similar rulings are now part of the fabric of our nation, ensuring that all can enjoy the 14^th Amendment’s promise of “equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court upholding Trump’s disqualification could someday be seen similarly: a difficult, albeit necessary decision that provoked unrest, but one that ensured our democratic form of government and prevented greater potential injustices. Brown was not just about Black students attending segregated schools in 1954, but similar racial segregation for generations to come. Likewise, enforcing Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment against Donald Trump is less about the 2024 election than it is about ensuring that we have free and fair elections that will not be threatened by violent insurrections 50 or 150 years into the future.