Trump
Implications of Trump’s ineligibility for office based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’
CNN legal analyst breaks down Colorado Supreme Court Trump ruling
CNN —
The Colorado Supreme Court made history Tuesday with an unprecedented, freeze-in-your-tracks ruling that former President Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 because the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding public office covers his conduct on January 6, 2021.
Trump is ineligible for office under 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban,’ Colorado Supreme Court rules
But importantly, in their 4-3 decision, the Colorado justices paused their decision so Trump can appeal to the US Supreme Court, which his campaign said he will “swiftly” do. The pause means Trump’s spot on the Colorado GOP primary ballot in March might be safe, if the nation’s highest court doesn’t settle the matter quickly.
In many ways, the landmark ruling holds Trump accountable for trying to overturn the 2020 election and provides a political punishment for his anti-democratic behavior. The ruling is also a massive vindication for the liberal groups and constitutional scholars of all stripes who championed such 14th Amendment lawsuits despite their long odds.
But legal scholars on all sides of the debate agree that the decision won’t be the final word. All eyes are now on the US Supreme Court — which is posed to play a major role in the 2024 election as it grapples with a series of major Trump —related cases.
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.
One justice concluded that a candidate shouldn’t be disqualified under the 14th Amendment if they haven’t been convicted of insurrection, which is a federal crime. (Trump is facing other felony charges, but not insurrection, in his federal election subversion case.) Another justice raised due process concerns and said only Congress has the power to enforce the ban. Trump previously raised some of these arguments in the case.
Even though Trump has bashed the seven-member court for only having Democratic appointees, his team is also embracing the dissents. Talking points circulated by the Trump campaign Tuesday highlighted a stinging comment from Justice Carlos Samour.
“I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom,” Samour wrote in his dissent.
The majority opinion acknowledged right off the bat that the case forced them to “travel in uncharted territory” and that the case “presents several issues of first impression.”
Indeed, judges have never weighed in on these questions because they never needed to. There has never before been even a remote possibility that a president-turned-insurrectionist would run for office again. The case provides yet another solemn reminder of how Trump made history by becoming the first president to try to stay in power after losing.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority wrote. “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.”