Mark Graber for the Washington Monthly:

In deciding for Trump, the Supreme Court acquired no additional political capital that might be employed against progressive rights and institutions. Instead, the opinion in Trump v. Anderson discredits conservative claims that the Court is making decisions on the neutral basis of text and history. The text of Section Three does not support the judicial distinction between state efforts to disqualify candidates for state office and candidates for federal office. No Section Three author made such a claim during the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts & Company love state regulation of federal elections except when they do not. There is no evidence that undecided voters are moving to Trump due to the disqualification litigation or that Trump’s claimed vindication has moved anyone outside the MAGA base. Rather, as the campaign continued, an increasing number of persons concluded that Donald Trump is not qualified to hold the presidency. Several polls, here and here, indicated a greater percentage of the public favored disqualification than voted for Donald Trump.

The legacy of the litigation campaign to disqualify Trump is yet to be determined. Lessig, Moyn, and others may correctly point to differences between the litigation campaign to disqualify Trump and other litigation campaigns that had a beneficent impact on constitutional politics. 

The crucial point is that the success of the litigation campaign for disqualification depends on the future and not on the recent Supreme Court’s decision. Perhaps Trump will convince crucial voters that he was vindicated by the justices. Another possibility is that crucial voters will realize that Trump responded to claims that he was an “oathbreaking insurrectionist” with procedural technicalities. By keeping January 6 in the public eye, the campaign to disqualify Trump may win in constitutional politics what was not gained in constitutional law.