Key Insights from the Landmark Trump Insurrectionist Ban Verdict
Colorado judge stuns with ruling on Trump's insurrectionist ban, stopping short of removing him from 2024 ballot Free-speech defense rejected, but ban doesn't apply to presidents A win for January 6 committee
A Colorado judge made a surprising ruling on Friday, almost removing former Donald Trump from the state's 2024 ballot due to the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. Despite being a win for Trump, the 102-page decision had a tone of condemnation.
Nonetheless, it represents another legal triumph for the Republican frontrunner, who has successfully safeguarded his position on the ballot in multiple crucial states, including Michigan and Minnesota, with ongoing appeals.
A doorman stands outside of Trump Tower, in New York, New York, on April 3, 2023.
Stephen Voss for CNN
Analysis of Trump's defense during the $250 million civil fraud trial reveals notable observations.
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified post the Civil War, prohibits officials who have taken an oath to support the Constitution from holding future office if they have "engaged in insurrection." However, the Constitution does not outline the procedure for enforcing this ban, resulting in its application on only two occasions since 1919. Consequently, several experts consider these lawsuits as highly unlikely to succeed.
Legal experts anticipate that the Supreme Court will be called upon to address the matter before the commencement of the 2024 primaries. Although not universally applicable, the ruling in Colorado constitutes the most extensive assessment to date, managed by a judge, pertaining to Trump's endeavors to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election. This ruling may potentially influence forthcoming legal disputes related to the general election and could even serve as a basis for preventing Trump from assuming office in the event of a victory in the following November.
Here are four takeaways from the major ruling in Colorado.
Trump engaged in insurrection, judge says
Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace determined that Trump's involvement in the January 6 insurrection was established through the testimony of US Capitol Police officers, lawmakers, evidence from Trump's January 6, 2021, speech, and expert testimony regarding right-wing extremism.
Former President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a campaign event on November 11, 2023 in Claremont, New Hampshire.
Scott Eisen/Getty Images
Trump's involvement in the insurrection has been acknowledged by a judge, however, he will still be included on the Colorado ballot. This is a significant achievement for the challengers, as no court in the nation had previously ruled on Trump's participation in the insurrection. It marks a crucial moment in the push for accountability following the events of January 6.
Wallace concluded that Trump not only stirred up the fury of his extremist followers but also purposefully instigated political violence, directing it towards the Capitol. Additionally, she determined that Trump aimed to undermine the certification of President Biden's electoral triumph through illegal methods.
The result:
Although not a criminal case, this lawsuit is incredibly significant. It closely parallels the federal criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, who accuses Trump of unlawfully obstructing the Electoral College proceedings.
The potential consequences of this on the criminal case remain uncertain. However, few judges in the nation have scrutinized Trump's post-election behavior as meticulously as Wallace has in this legal action.
Video Ad Feedback
Newly released audio reveals Trump's words about January 6 crowd
03:00
- Source:
CNN
Judge rejects Trumps free-speech defense
Wallace provided a comprehensive legal evaluation of President Trump's inflammatory address at the Ellipse. In her analysis, she extensively scrutinized the content of Trump's speech, spanning 17 pages, to determine if his words met the legal criteria for incitement of violence.
Trump has consistently claimed that the remarks he made that day were protected speech, referring to the Supreme Court's previous rulings on the First Amendment and incitement cases. His legal team also presented this argument in Colorado.
However, Wallace dismissed these defenses based on free speech, since he determined that Trump's speech on that day was explicitly intended as a call to arms, and it was indeed interpreted as such by a segment of the crowd.
The Court determines that Donald Trump's Ellipse speech provoked an immediate and reckless display of violence. He unmistakably urged the crowd, on multiple occasions, to fight vigorously and aggressively, to march towards the Capitol, and to reclaim our nation through force. Furthermore, he subtly implied that the crowd could disregard conventional rules due to the alleged election fraud.
But the ban doesnt apply to presidents
In spite of the extensive damning findings, Wallace determined that Trump should still be included on the ballot in Colorado due to the apparent exemption of the insurrectionist ban in the constitution for presidents.
The provision states that individuals who have taken an oath to "support" the constitution and later participate in insurrection are prohibited from serving as a Senator, Representative in Congress, elector of the President and Vice-President, or holding any office, civil or military, under the United States or any State. However, the provision does not specifically mention the presidency. Additionally, the presidential oath does not require individuals to "support" the Constitution, but rather to "preserve, protect, and defend" it.
Former president Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Stevens High School in Claremont, New Hampshire, on November 11.
Sophie Park/The New York Times/Redux
Trumps trials: Major civil, criminal and constitutional case developments
Wallace stated that despite the persuasive arguments on both sides, she was convinced that the officers of the United States did not encompass the President of the United States. She also believed that the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include someone who had only taken the Presidential Oath. Wallace pointed out that whether this omission was deliberate or an oversight was not within the jurisdiction of the Court. She observed that Trump was the first president in US history who had never held a government position prior to assuming the presidency, which meant he had never sworn the oath to "support" the Constitution like lawmakers and military officers do.
Vindication for January 6 committee
Despite claims from Trump's lawyers that the panel was "overwhelmingly biased" against him, the judge acknowledged the significance of the House January 6 committee report and found no credibility in the attempts made to discredit its findings.
The committee, consisting of Democrats and two Republicans opposed to Trump, held Trump responsible for inciting the insurrection and proposed his disqualification based on the 14th Amendment.
Wallace, in a significant ruling, deemed the January 6th Report credible and admissible as evidence. This decision played a crucial role as the challengers against Trump relied on the committee's findings for their unprecedented legal challenge.
Trump has consistently criticized the disbanded January 6 committee, denouncing its members as "thugs and scoundrels" who spread a "monstrous lie" regarding his role in the insurrection.
During the trial, Trump's legal team attempted to persuade Wallace to dismiss the committee's findings and presented evidence to refute their claims that Trump had prior knowledge of the violence and endeavored to instigate the riot. However, their efforts proved unsuccessful.
"Trump was unable to provide the Court with any credible evidence which would discredit the factual findings of the January 6th Report," Wallace said.
