Donald Trump can remain on Colorado’s ballot ahead of the Tuesday primary, the U.S. Supreme court ruled Monday morning, overturning a Colorado Supreme Court decision that had found the former president ineligible.
While the state court’s decision was on hold, the federal justices’ 9-0 ruling puts to rest questions about whether states can enforce the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment against any presidential candidate without permission from Congress.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” says the per curiam opinion, which was not signed since it represents the opinion of the court.
The case was filed by a group of unaffiliated and Republican Colorado voters who argued Trump was ineligible for office under the Civil War-era amendment to the Constitution. Section Three of the 14th Amendment specifically bars people who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from office if they had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution.
Trumps’ words riled up the mob that later stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the plaintiffs argued, and he took too little action to calm the riot — meeting the criteria for engaging in insurrection
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed in a December ruling, finding 4-3 that Trump was ineligible to appear on the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot. The court put that ruling on hold while Trump appealed it, so his name was printed on ballots for the state’s March 5 primary.
The case was brought as part of a national effort helmed by the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, and other groups. CREW zeroed in on Colorado because state laws allow voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates and the Colorado secretary of state has the power to keep ineligible candidates off the ballot.
“They tried to overthrow an election. You don’t do that in the United States,” Norma Anderson, a Republican plaintiff on the case and former majority leader in the state Senate, said ahead of the Feb. 8 oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. “That’s a threat to democracy. I am concerned about our country if everyone thinks that’s fine. And Donald Trump was the instigator of that — no one else.”
Trump’s legal team and other opponents of barring him from the ballot quickly launched a defense based on what they characterized as vagaries of the insurrection clause: Is the presidency, which is not specified in the amendment’s text, an office under the United States, and does the restriction cover someone who took the presidential oath of office, which does not include the word “support”?
Trump’s legal team called the Jan. 6 riot “shameful, criminal (and) violent,” but they didn’t concede that it was an insurrection — or that Trump engaged in any insurrection.
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court, also cited a pending case in which Trump has argued he has presidential immunity and couldn’t be prosecuted for anything he did on Jan. 6, 2021, regardless.
Related Articles
Nikki Haley wins the District of Columbia’s Republican primary and gets her first 2024 victory
A Supreme Court decision could come Monday in a case about barring Trump from the 2024 ballot
Letters: An “uncommitted” vote on Tuesday could backfire for Democrats
Nikki Haley: We have a country to save from Trump and Biden
Rep. Khanna: President Biden is working on a cease-fire and must be reelected
“The Court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their brief ahead of Supreme Court arguments.
During oral arguments, the justices did not linger on whether the Capitol riot amounted to insurrection, or if the presidency was intended to be one of the offices covered by the 14th Amendment.
Instead, much of their focused was on whether states had the ability to bar national candidates for federal office. On that point, most — if not all — of the nine justices seemed skeptical.
As Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three liberal justices, put it: “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?”
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.