The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Sunday that states cannot invoke the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 of the Constitution, to prohibit candidates from running for presidency. This overturns an earlier decision by a Colorado state court barring former president Donald Trump from participating in the state's Republican Party primary.

The Fourteenth Amendment bars those engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding federal or state office. To prevent Trump from making a political comeback, the Democratic-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed lawsuits in multiple state supreme courts, citing Trump's alleged incitement of the Jan 6, 2021"Capitol Hill riot" as grounds to prevent him from participating in the Republican Party primaries in those states.

Some constitutional experts believe that the Supreme Court ruling is "reasonable and justified" at the legal level and can avoid some "artificially magnified legal confusion". However, many others fear that the ruling has overturned the states' authority in such cases on the grounds of "overreaching" and given it to Congress. While the move might "reduce noises" during this year's election, it could lead to similar games being thrown into Congress in the future, exacerbating the already escalating congressional partisan strife.

Moreover, some commentators point out that the ruling is actually the result of a series of tit-for-tat judicial "maneuvers" between the two parties. Initially, it was the Trump camp's refusal to accept defeat, attempting to use legal challenges to deny the legitimacy of their opponents' election, ultimately leading to the "Capitol Hill riot". Subsequently, Democrats seized on this event and tried to prevent Trump from returning to power through legal means.

The Supreme Court ruling may not fundamentally solve the problem, as the partisan struggles in the US are still intensive.