Can the SCOTUS undo DC statehood?

[Vosem]

Yes. It is in fact fairly easy to argue that the Twenty-third Amendment prohibits DC statehood (by permitting DC to do certain things "as if it were a State"; that's the exact wording).

It may be the case that Congress may be able to redefine "the District constituting the seat of Government" by legislation, but a really strong originalist might read Section 1 the way it would've been interpreted in 1961, which refers to a very specific District.

[Vosem]

Wasn’t it mentioned somewhere that statehood cannot be revoked for any state unless the state wanted that?

If the Court were to just straight-up find that the granting of statehood in & of itself was unconstitutional, then that would be the end of that, previous precedent be damned.

Isn’t unconstitutional to remove a state, or was that just a norm?

It is unconstitutional to remove a state if they are rightfully a state, but if they were never really a state in the first place their statehood could be revoked. Some really hardcore originalists have argued that West Virginia is not "really" a state, for instance.

[Vosem]

Wasn’t it mentioned somewhere that statehood cannot be revoked for any state unless the state wanted that?

If the Court were to just straight-up find that the granting of statehood in & of itself was unconstitutional, then that would be the end of that, previous precedent be damned.

Isn’t unconstitutional to remove a state, or was that just a norm?

It is unconstitutional to remove a state if they are rightfully a state, but if they were never really a state in the first place their statehood could be revoked. Some really hardcore originalists have argued that West Virginia is not "really" a state, for instance.

Didn't Barrett herself basically say that, except for West Virginia she thinks its statehood is such a 'superprecedent' that the Court can't and shouldn't overturn it. A factor which wouldn't apply with DC statehood.

Yes, but this was a reply to other scholars who had pointed out that, technically, the US never recognized Virginia's secession, so Virginia technically remained a state during the Civil War, and technically no state can be partitioned against its will.

Forcibly re-amalgamating WV and VA would indeed be extremely disruptive and unpopular for all involved, and so won't happen. But in principle...

[Vosem]

Yes. It is in fact fairly easy to argue that the Twenty-third Amendment prohibits DC statehood (by permitting DC to do certain things "as if it were a State"; that's the exact wording).

It may be the case that Congress may be able to redefine "the District constituting the seat of Government" by legislation, but a really strong originalist might read Section 1 the way it would've been interpreted in 1961, which refers to a very specific District.

I really think that once DC statehood passes, repealing the 23rd Amendment shouldn't be too difficult. It's not like the GOP has any interest in giving the rump Federal District 3 electoral votes.

It would be plausible for the Court to rule that DC statehood cannot pass unless the 23rd Amendment is repealed first, though.

(And I presume the Democratic Party would resist an amendment that takes away 3 guaranteed electoral votes except as part of some bargain that gets them something else they want; as a stand-alone amendment in the world where DC statehood has already been achieved I think state-level Democratic parties would tend to resist ratification.)