Current:Home > MarketsColorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause -Triumph Financial Guides
Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause
View
Date:2025-04-18 14:25:47
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! (939)
Related
- Sam Taylor
- Brittany Snow Details “Completely” Shocking Divorce From Tyler Stanaland
- Brittany Mahomes Shares She's Struggling With Hives and Acne in New Makeup-Free Selfies
- What Lamar Odom Would Say to Ex Khloe Kardashian Today
- Moving abroad can be expensive: These 5 countries will 'pay' you to move there
- I've been fighting cancer for years. I know what's in store for Princess Kate.
- Court tosses Republican Pennsylvania lawmakers’ challenge of state, federal voter access actions
- North Carolina elections board finalizes results from primary marked by new voter ID rules
- 2025 'Doomsday Clock': This is how close we are to self
- Christine Quinn's Husband Christian Dumontet Denies Assault While Detailing Fight That Led to 911 Call
Ranking
- Behind on your annual reading goal? Books under 200 pages to read before 2024 ends
- Elle Fanning Debuts Her Most Dramatic Hair Transformation Yet
- 'Pops love you': Young father of 2 killed during fist fight at Louisiana bar
- 3 moves to make a month before your retirement
- Questlove charts 50 years of SNL musical hits (and misses)
- FBI says Alex Murdaugh lied about where money stolen from clients went and who helped him steal
- What we know about the condition of Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge and how this sort of collapse could happen
- Yellen says China’s rapid buildout of its green energy industry ‘distorts global prices’
Recommendation
McConnell absent from Senate on Thursday as he recovers from fall in Capitol
Search for survivors in Baltimore bridge collapse called off as effort enters recovery phase
Katie Maloney Accused of Having Sex With This Vanderpump Rules Alum
Ahmaud Arbery’s killers ask a US appeals court to overturn their hate crime convictions
Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
Joey King Reveals the Best Part of Married Life With Steven Piet
Activists forming human chain in Nashville on Covenant school shooting anniversary
Feds say California’s facial hair ban for prison guards amounts to religious discrimination