Former President Donald Trump will be back on the ballot in Colorado.

In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court ruled Trump could not be excluded from the state's primary election ballot over his part in the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

Colorado Supreme Court tried to disqualify him under Section three of the 14th Amendment, known as the insurrection Clause of the Constitution.

We spoke to Josh Douglas, a constitutional law expert and professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, about the ruling and why a unanimous decision does not mean the justices are united on the issue.

It was pretty clear from the oral argument that the court would reject the Colorado Supreme Court decision kicking Trump off of the ballot.

I do think it was a little bit surprising, and we should be careful about how we talk about the case in that it was unanimous in its result, but not unanimous in its reasoning.

And there were some separate opinions that really called into question the approach to the majority.

Chuck.

Driving the court's decision was this desire to say, look, one state can't do it on their own.

It's for a national office.

It's got to be a national body.

And the court did make a distinction between a state invoking Section 14, the 14th Amendment, Section three for a state office.

Let's say someone's running for governor and a state Supreme Court declares them ineligible because they engaged in an insurrection.

Supreme Court said states can do that.

The difference here is that it's a federal national office and it would be dangerous for one state to make that determination for the nation.

And I think it's important to recognize that although the court spoke with one voice just on the ultimate holding that Trump is eligible, or at least the Colorado Supreme Court could not render him ineligible.

What it said about whether Congress could do so and how it could do so was pretty fractured.

Unfortunately, the court's majority opinion seemed to propose more questions than answers on this aspect.

So what the court said is that any time Congress is passing a law pursuant to the 14th Amendment, it has to follow this test known as congruence and proportionality.

What the court really did here, the court's majority, is it gave itself more power.

It gave itself power to review anything Congress would do in this arena, which is a little bit strange in some ways.

When you think about the history of the 14th Amendment, if you know if it's true that only Congress has the power to invoke the 14th Amendment, Section three and declare a candidate ineligible, it seems a little bit strange for the court to say, but we can review that decision.

And here are the various standards that we would apply to determine if Congress acted appropriately or not.

Although a case of hugely national importance, the court wanted to speak with a unanimous voice.

It really wasn't unanimous here.

Today's decision also ends efforts by Maine and Illinois to get Trump taken off the ballot.