Fact check: Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on a former president serving as vice president and later becoming president?

1. Why the Supreme Court’s recent rulings don’t answer the core question — a legal gap exposed

The Supreme Court’s decision in cases like Trump v. Anderson addressed enforcement mechanisms of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, clarifying who may enforce disqualification provisions but stopping short of declaring categorical eligibility rules for former presidents serving as vice president. The March 2024 opinions concentrated on whether Congress or the states have authority to enforce disqualification against candidates and officials, and they resolved procedural and enforcement questions rather than the constitutional interplay of the Twelfth and Twenty‑Second Amendments with presidential succession. This means the Court clarified aspects of disqualification for insurrection or rebellion but left the narrower question of a former president’s eligibility for the vice presidency—and subsequent succession—unresolved at the Supreme Court level. ^{[4] [5]}

2. Academic debate fills the vacuum — competing textual and historical readings

Scholars deploy textual, historical, and purposive arguments to reach opposite conclusions about whether a former president can serve as vice president and later become president, with law review analyses examining the Twelfth and Twenty‑Second Amendments in depth. Some commentators stress the Twelfth Amendment’s structure of succession and the absence of an explicit bar, arguing that the Constitution does not preclude a former president from occupying the vice presidency and succeeding. Others point to the Twenty‑Second Amendment’s limit on election to the presidency twice and argue that allowing a former two‑term president to become vice president and succeed could contravene its purpose by functionally creating a third term. Neither line of academic argument has been adopted by the Supreme Court as binding precedent. ^{[6] [7]}

3. Lower courts, state officials, and public controversies have tested the issue piecemeal

State officials and lower courts have confronted eligibility challenges in election and ballot‑access contexts, producing fragmented rulings that reflect divergent factual frameworks and statutory interpretations, but none constitute a Supreme Court resolution of the exact vice‑president‑then‑president scenario. The March 2024 litigation around Section 3 involved claims about disqualifying defendants from federal office and clarified enforcement channels, yet those cases typically turned on facts tied to insurrection or statutory enforcement rather than a categorical reading of vice‑presidential succession for former presidents. This patchwork produces legal uncertainty: the country has seen litigation and advisory opinions, but the Supreme Court has not settled the constitutional question in a precedential way. ^{[8] [1]}

4. What advocates on each side emphasize — political and institutional consequences

Proponents of allowing a former president to serve as vice president point to the Constitution’s silence and the functional role of the Twelfth Amendment in arranging electoral and succession mechanics, asserting that disallowing such service would require clear textual authority. Opponents warn that permitting a two‑term president to return via the vice presidency would subvert the Twenty‑Second Amendment’s aim to prevent extended tenure; their arguments often highlight democratic and institutional risks. Both camps advance credible legal histories and policy warnings, and their positions are reflected in scholarship and commentary rather than binding judicial rulings. The absence of a controlling Supreme Court opinion means political actors and lower courts may continue to weigh these competing stakes in future disputes. ^{[3] [7]}

5. Bottom line: expect future litigation and a likely eventual Supreme Court test

Because the Supreme Court has addressed related constitutional provisions without resolving this precise question, the matter remains open and ripe for litigation, particularly if a contested ticket produces lawsuits that raise pure Twelfth/Twenty‑Second Amendment issues divorced from Section 3 factual predicates. Given the intensity of scholarly debate and the piecemeal nature of lower‑court decisions, a definitive ruling will likely come only if a concrete case or controversy reaches the Court presenting the direct legal question of whether a former president may serve as vice president and then succeed to the presidency. Until then, the prevailing state of law is that the Supreme Court has clarified related doctrines but has not issued a controlling decision on this specific succession scenario. ^{[2] [6]}