At the top of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in the case of Trump v. Anderson is the term, “Per Curiam.” That’s a shorter and fancier way of saying, “by decision of a court in unanimous agreement.” But that characterization is somewhat modified by the background noise from two separate opinions.

Yes, all nine justices agreed that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision could not bar former President Donald Trump from access to the state’s presidential primary ballot. The majority agree that section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which bars candidates from office who engaged in insurrection, can be enforced only by an enabling act of Congress.

But the unanimous opinion is actually three opinions. The first, roughly 13 pages long, declares all nine members of the high court “agree with the result” that a state court cannot deny ballot access to a candidate for federal office, while recognizing that “our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons.”

The second opinion is by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Republican presidential appointee, and runs just two paragraphs. She opines that it would have been sufficient for the court simply to assert that states cannot bar candidates for federal office, and stop there.

The third opinion, 13 paragraphs long, is........

© The Hill