Key Learnings from Colorado's Landmark Decision Deeming Trump Ineligible for Office under the 14th Amendment's Insurrectionist Ban
Colorado's landmark ruling declares Trump ineligible for office in 2024 due to his involvement in the insurrection The decision awaits review by the US Supreme Court, while dissenting opinions raise possibilities for Trump's potential victory A significant moment observed by the Colorado justices
The unprecedented ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday made history by declaring that former President Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024. This decision is based on the 14th Amendment's prohibition of insurrectionists holding public office, which encompasses his actions on January 6, 2021.
Former President Donald Trump speaks to a crowd of supporters at the Fort Dodge Senior High School on November 18, 2023 in Fort Dodge, Iowa.
Jim Vondruska/Getty Images
Trump has been ruled ineligible for office under the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban by the Colorado Supreme Court. The 4-3 decision means that Trump will be removed from the Republican primary ballot in Colorado, slated for Super Tuesday in early March. The ruling has been temporarily paused to allow Trump to appeal to the US Supreme Court, which could potentially preserve his spot on the primary ballot if the appeal process is not resolved swiftly.
The landmark ruling holds Trump accountable for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and serves as a political consequence for his anti-democratic actions. It also serves as a significant victory for liberal groups and constitutional scholars who supported such 14th Amendment lawsuits despite the odds.
However, Trump has proven adept at turning legal setbacks into gains in the polls. He is now in a better position to defeat President Joe Biden than he was a year ago, before facing criminal charges in four jurisdictions. Trump and his GOP allies reacted strongly to the ruling on Tuesday night, portraying themselves as victims and condemning the decision.
Here are the key takeaways from the decision and what comes next:
Trump engaged in insurrection, court says
The highest court in Colorado confirmed the trial judges' findings that the January 6 attack on the US Capitol was indeed an insurrection and that Trump was involved in it. These legal findings were crucial for the challengers to overcome in order to potentially remove Trump from any future ballots, particularly because the 14th Amendment does not clearly define what constitutes an "insurrection" or what it means to be "engaged in" insurrection.
The justices upheld the ruling that Trump's speech on January 6 at the Ellipse was not covered by the First Amendment. Trump had previously tried to argue this in both state and federal courts, but they found that his words had incited violence when he urged his supporters to "walk down to the Capitol" and "fight like hell" to "take back our country."
In a 134-page majority opinion, the justices stated, "President Trump incited and encouraged the use of violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power."
The insurrectionist ban does apply to Trump
The justices broke from the trial judge on one key issue, reversing her controversial decision that the "insurrectionist ban" applies to every office except the presidency.
Former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally Saturday Dec. 16, 2023, in Durham, N.H. (AP Photo/Reba Saldanha)
Reba Saldanha/AP
READ: Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing Trump from 2024 ballot
Fragment
Oath-breaking insurrectionists are prohibited from serving as senators, representatives, presidential electors, or holding any civil or military office under the United States or any State according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. However, the presidency is not specifically mentioned. The trial judge allowed Trump to remain on the 2024 ballot due to this lack of clarity in the text, but the high court disagreed. This disagreement was the key factor in their decision to disqualify Trump.
The US Supreme Court will have the ultimate say
"It appears probable that the absence of specific inclusion of the Presidency is due to its clear classification as an office," stated the court, and emphasized that "any assertion that the Presidency does not qualify as an office within the United States fundamentally contradicts the principle that all government officials, including the President, are dedicated to serving the people."
The case is not set in stone. It is bound for the US Supreme Court. It is uncertain how the judges will approach the case. When will they decide to consider the appeal? Will there be oral debates? How soon will they deliver a final ruling? The responses to these inquiries will impact the political timeline, as the Iowa caucuses mark the start of the GOP primary season in under a month.
Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a campaign event on December 19, 2023 in Waterloo, Iowa.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
Trump says hes never read Mein Kampf as he doubles down on anti-immigrant rhetoric
The shocking outcome from Colorado has changed the game. Trump is now fighting to regain his spot on the ballot and will need the US Supreme Court, with its conservative supermajority and three justices he appointed, to keep his campaign alive. Derek Muller, an election law expert at Notre Dame Law School, described the situation as "extraordinary and unprecedented." He filed a brief in the case providing legal analysis but remained neutral on Trump's eligibility.
Paused ruling is good news for Trump
"He added that it places President Trump's entire election campaign in significant legal risk. The Supreme Court will likely be petitioned to consider this case, which could alter the outcome of the election - something Im sure it has little desire to do."
Should Trump appeal to the Supreme Court by January 4th, which is almost certain, the decision will be put on hold until the highest court announces whether it will hear the case. If it does, the decision will be delayed until the final ruling is made. This is one day before Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold is required by state law to certify the list of candidates for the March 5 Republican presidential primary.
Griswold, who is a Democrat, believes that Trump incited the insurrection, but has not yet taken a stance on Trump's eligibility under the 14th Amendment. During an interview with CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Tuesday, she stated that she will "follow whatever court decision is in place."
The Colorado justices have stated that Griswold "will continue to be required to include President Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court." This means that even if he remains on the primary ballot and wins the GOP nomination, he could still be disqualified for the general election - with every other state observing the outcome.
Video Ad Feedback
'Vindication': Ex-Trump WH lawyer on how Trump will react to Colorado ruling
01:26
- Source:
CNN
Dissents offer path to Trump victory
The dissents from the sharply divided 4-3 court offer some legal foundations for Trump to overturn the historic ruling when he inevitably appeals to the US Supreme Court.
A justice argued that disqualification under the 14th Amendment should not occur unless the candidate has been convicted of insurrection, a federal crime. Another justice expressed concerns about due process and stated that only Congress has the authority to enforce the ban. Trump previously presented similar arguments in the case. Despite criticizing the court for its Democratic appointees, Trump's team is also supporting the dissenting opinions, as evidenced by talking points circulated by the Trump campaign highlighting a critical statement from Justice Carlos Samour.
"I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesnt resemble anything Ive seen in a courtroom," Samour wrote in his dissent.
Colorado justices knew history was watching
The majority opinion immediately recognized that the case would take them into unknown territory and that it presented several unprecedented issues. In fact, these questions had never been considered by judges before, as there had never been a situation where a former president who incited an insurrection would seek to run for office again. The case serves as a solemn reminder of how Trump made history by attempting to remain in power after losing the presidency.
The majority wrote, "We do not reach these conclusions without careful consideration. We understand the importance of the questions at hand and our duty to apply the law impartially, regardless of public opinion." This report includes contributions from CNN's Devan Cole, Holmes Lybrand, and Alayna Treene.
