Current:Home > MyColorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause -Capitatum
Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause
SignalHub View
Date:2025-04-11 09:47:46
DENVER (AP) — The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.
The decision from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.
Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.
The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the court’s majority. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Trump’s attorneys had promised to appeal any disqualification immediately to the nation’s highest court, which has the final say about constitutional matters. His campaign said it was working on a response to the ruling.
Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and doesn’t need the state to win next year’s presidential election. But the danger for the former president is that more courts and election officials will follow Colorado’s lead and exclude Trump from must-win states.
Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Trump under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War. It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.
The Colorado case is the first where the plaintiffs succeeded. After a weeklong hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one.
Trump’s attorneys convinced Wallace that, because the language in Section 3 refers to “officers of the United States” who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, it must not apply to the president, who is not included as an “officer of the United States” elsewhere in the document and whose oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.
The provision also says offices covered include senator, representative, electors of the president and vice president, and all others “under the United States,” but doesn’t name the presidency.
The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine the framers of the amendment, fearful of former Confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.
“You’d be saying a rebel who took up arms against the government couldn’t be a county sheriff, but could be the president,” attorney Jason Murray said in arguments before the court in early December.
veryGood! (597)
Related
- Opinion: Gianni Infantino, FIFA sell souls and 2034 World Cup for Saudi Arabia's billions
- Greece’s left-wing opposition party slips into crisis as lawmakers quit in defiance of new leader
- What is a hip-drop tackle? And why some from the NFL want it banned. Graphics explain
- No crime in death of 9-year-old girl struck by Tucson school gate, sheriff says
- John Galliano out at Maison Margiela, capping year of fashion designer musical chairs
- 28 Black Friday 2023 Home Deals That Are Too Good to Pass Up, From Dyson to Pottery Barn
- Could IonQ become the next Nvidia?
- Sweet potato memories: love 'em, rely on 'em ... hate 'em
- A steeplechase record at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Then a proposal. (He said yes.)
- Judges rule against Tennessee Senate redistricting map over treatment of Nashville seats
Ranking
- Travis Hunter, the 2
- 4 Indian soldiers killed in fighting with rebels in disputed Kashmir
- Former St. Louis alderman in fraud case also charged with lying to police
- Dolly Parton is Cowboys' halftime star for Thanksgiving: How to watch, livestream
- Olympic women's basketball bracket: Schedule, results, Team USA's path to gold
- Sam Altman to join Microsoft research team after OpenAI ousts him. Here's what we know.
- South Korea says Russian support likely enabled North Korea to successfully launch a spy satellite
- Notre Dame honored transfer QB Sam Hartman, and his former coach at Wake Forest hated it
Recommendation
Illinois governor calls for resignation of sheriff whose deputy fatally shot Black woman in her home
The Excerpt podcast: How to navigate politics around the dinner table this holiday
Local newspaper started by Ralph Nader saved from closure by national media company
Paris Hilton's entertainment company joins brands pulling ads from X, report says
Bodycam footage shows high
The EU Overhauls Its Law Covering Environmental Crimes, Banning Specific Acts and Increasing Penalties
Ms. Rachel announces toy line in the works, asking families everywhere: 'What should we make?'
What the events leading up to Sam Altman’s reinstatement at OpenAI mean for the industry’s future