In a groundbreaking decision, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again due to his involvement in the insurrection leading up to the Capitol storming on January 6. This explosive ruling is expected to propel a crucial case to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially shaping the landscape of the 2024 election.
The Colorado Supreme Court, being the first in the nation to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, disqualifying those engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it, has set a precedent echoed by Trump’s opponents nationwide.
The ruling specifically instructs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Trump’s name from the state’s Republican primary ballot, while leaving the general election unaddressed. The decision is not taken lightly, as expressed by the four-justice majority, acknowledging the weight of the questions before them and their duty to apply the law impartially.
Trump’s campaign promptly announced its intention to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado justices anticipated this move by putting their ruling on hold until at least January 4, extending it further if Trump appeals before then. While this ruling is state-specific, it could compel the highest court to address the issue nationally.
Legal expert Anthony Michael Kreis suggests that the national implications make it likely for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case, adding to a stack of Trump-related matters they are already dealing with, including potential immunity from prosecution for actions in office and the scope of obstruction charges in his federal January 6 case.
With a 6-to-3 conservative majority, the U.S. Supreme Court faces heightened political pressure and scrutiny. The ruling places the court in the center of another U.S. presidential election, reminiscent of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 but against the backdrop of greater political instability.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s comprehensive ruling overturns a previous finding that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency. They affirmed that Trump’s actions leading up to and on January 6 constituted engagement in insurrection and asserted the courts’ authority to enforce Section 3 against a person not explicitly designated by Congress.
In response, Trump’s campaign criticized the ruling, anticipating support from the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite numerous legal challenges, Trump’s standing among Republican primary voters appears unaffected, with his campaign denouncing the decision as part of a politically motivated effort to undermine him.
Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire faced procedural dismissals, while a Michigan judge deemed the issue political and not within his jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in Michigan have appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, reflecting the broader legal battles surrounding Trump’s eligibility