Supreme Court's liberal justices fault scope of Trump 14th Amendment decision

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued a unanimous decision restoring Donald Trump's ability to be on the presidential ballot in Colorado.

But there was disagreement among the justices on how far the majority went in determining only Congress could enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify candidates seeking federal office.

The three liberal justices -- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- aired their criticism of that finding in a separate concurring opinion.

"Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President," the trio wrote. "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."

The justices agreed that Colorado's decision needed to be reversed, as it would've created a "chaotic state-by-state patchwork at odds with our Nation’s federalism principle."

However, they said that is where the decision should have ended.

"Yet the majority goes further ... They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy," they wrote. "Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so."

"The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment," the three justices continued. "In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment."

Further, they objected to the fact that the decision rules out judicial enforcement of Section 3 and places limitations on how Congress can act.

“By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” they wrote.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative appointed by Trump, similarly held the case didn't require the court to "address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced."

However, Barrett seemingly shot back at the liberal justices for the tone of their concurring opinion, saying now isn't the time to amplify disagreements.

"The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up," she wrote. "For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."