Matt Ford for TNR:

What the Supreme Court did not decide could be as important as what it did decide. The justices did not address the merits of the Colorado voters’ claim against Trump about the former president’s participation in an insurrection. Nor did they rule in Trump’s favor on grounds that would immunize him from Section 3’s reach. The justices did not address, for example, Trump’s claim that presidents don’t fall under Section 3.

By only ruling that states had no power to disqualify federal candidates, the court punted on whether Trump is actually qualified or disqualified from office under Section 3. Congress could pass legislation to allow states to determine that before November, at least in theory. But the GOP’s control of the House, along with the need to secure a 60-vote majority in the Senate, means it won’t. As a result, Trump’s disqualification won’t become a live legal issue again until and unless he wins more than 270 electoral votes in November….

Some legal scholars have warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling could lead to further chaos down the road. If Trump prevails in the November election, for example, Congress will be charged with counting the electoral votes on January 6 once again. This time, however, it might be Democratic lawmakers who argue that votes for a candidate shouldn’t be counted. Unlike some of their Republican counterparts four years earlier, they would also have a strong argument to do so.

“This is an area of high uncertainty for me,” Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law professor, told The Washington Post this week. “I think there’s no question the mood from the court is to discourage Congress from refusing to count electoral votes on January 6. But it’s far from clear to me that that is foreclosed from Congress’s power.”