Breaking News: Game-Changing Case Threatens Trump's 2024 Presidential Ambitions

The majority of the headlines this week have primarily focused on two out of four criminal cases involving former President Donald Trump's legal troubles.

Dean Obeidallah

In the federal 2020 election subversion case, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan placed a limited gag order on Trump to prevent him from publicly attacking potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court personnel. However, on Friday, the judge temporarily suspended the gag order to allow for further briefings from the defense and prosecution after Trump appealed the order.

Later in the week, significant developments emerged in Trump's criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia, where he faces 13 felony charges related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election in that state. Two individuals, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, who are co-defendants in this case, have pleaded guilty to multiple charges and have expressed their intent to testify for the prosecution in forthcoming cases, which may also involve Trump. (Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty to both state and federal charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.)

Former President Donald Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, speaks during a campaign event in Clive, Iowa, on October 16.

Rachel Mummey/The New York Times/Redux

Opinion: Trump faces his biggest challenge yet: shutting up

However, the biggest threat to Trump's 2024 candidacy may not lie in his criminal cases. Instead, there is a lawsuit in Colorado that not only delivered some negative news for Trump recently but is also slated to go to trial this month. This particular case revolves around a lawsuit filed by a liberal watchdog group on behalf of six Colorado voters. Their aim is to disqualify Trump from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his involvement in the events leading up to the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

The aim is to prevent him from appearing on the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado due to a provision in the amendments that disqualifies US officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution if they have "engaged in insurrection" and/or "given aid or comfort" to insurrectionists.

On Friday, Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace rejected three arguments made by Trump and the Colorado GOP to dismiss the case before the scheduled October 30 trial date. One of the judge's most significant points was dismissing the argument that state officials have no authority to determine who appears on the ballot if a political party wishes to include that individual.

In her ruling, Wallace stated, "Allowing the Party to unilaterally select its desired candidate without any supervision could potentially result in the nomination of individuals, regardless of their age, citizenship, or residency." She further emphasized, "This perspective is illogical; the Constitution and its eligibility criteria are not mere recommendations, but rather firm guidelines that cannot be decided solely by political parties."

A November 19, 2020 photo shows Sidney Powell speaking during a press conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, DC.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Sidney Powell's plea spells trouble for Trump and his co-defendants. This is further supported by a 2012 opinion from Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of Trump, when he served as a federal appellate judge. Gorsuch's written stance affirms that states possess the legal power to disqualify candidates who are prohibited by the Constitution from taking office.

Wallace, nevertheless, did not reach the conclusion that "the Fourteenth Amendment can be employed to disqualify a presidential candidate from the primary ballot, or that it is within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State to assess such a matter." These issues, along with others, will be determined in the forthcoming trial.

However, if this lawsuit proves to be successful, it might pose a greater threat to Trump's candidacy compared to his criminal cases. Why? Although Trump could face conviction in any of his criminal cases, there is no constitutional restriction preventing him from running for president. In fact, Trump could potentially be incarcerated yet still be eligible to run.

However, should Trump suffer a defeat in this lawsuit concerning the 14th Amendment or any similar ones in states like Michigan and Minnesota, his name would be excluded from the ballot in those states due to his constitutional disqualification as a presidential candidate.

{{img_placeholder_3}}

President Donald Trump arrives at the "Stop The Steal" Rally on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Opinion: Reasons Why Trump Should Not be Disqualified by the 14th Amendment

Despite a pending motion to dismiss the Colorado lawsuit, Trump's campaign has expressed disapproval of the rulings made by the Colorado judges. A spokesperson for the campaign stated, "The judge is disregarding established legal authority. We firmly believe that the principles of justice will ultimately prevail, and this decision will be overturned, whether it be by the Colorado Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court. Preventing the frontrunner for the presidency from appearing on the ballot is an unjust and un-American act."

Regardless of the outcome in Colorado, legal scholars who believe that Trump breached Section 3 of the 14th Amendment agree that the US Supreme Court must make the final ruling on this matter. Considering the significance of the issue, it is only fitting that it be decided by the highest court in our nation. The Colorado case may very well be the one that reaches the Supreme Court.

For those who doubt the possibility of Trump being disqualified from the ballot, it is worth examining the situation of former New Mexico elected official Couy Griffin, previously the leader of a group known as Cowboys for Trump.

Griffin faced a lawsuit accusing him of infringing upon Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his involvement in the January 6 attack. Following a trial, the judge determined, based on expert testimony, that the January 6 incident constituted an "insurrection" as outlined in the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War. The purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was to prevent former Confederates from holding public office after the war. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter.

Sign up for CNN Opinions newsletter

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

In 2022, Griffin was convicted of trespassing on US Capitol grounds, but he was cleared of the disorderly and disruptive conduct charge. The judge determined that Griffin's presence on the Capitol grounds constituted participation in the insurrection. According to the judge, engaging in insurrection does not require personally committing acts of violence, but can also include non-violent actions or words that further the insurrection.

As a result, Griffin was ousted from his position as a commissioner in Otero County and will be prohibited from running for office in New Mexico in the future. This landmark ruling in September 2022 marked the first instance of an elected official being dismissed from office due to their involvement or support of the Capitol riot. Griffin's final appeal to overturn the decision was rejected by the state's Supreme Court earlier this year.

To those who argue that it is undemocratic to bar officials from the ballot if they have violated the 14th Amendment, I have two responses. Firstly, it is far more undemocratic to partake in an insurrection that aims to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. And secondly, we cannot disregard the conditions clearly established for candidates in the US Constitution, at least not if we desire to maintain a democratic republic.