Colorado Court Bars Trump from 2024 Ballot: Supreme Showdown Looms

In a groundbreaking decision, Colorado’s highest court has declared that former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible for the 2024 ballot due to his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. This historic ruling, the first of its kind, invokes Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, disqualifying individuals engaged in insurrection against the Constitution. The court directed the exclusion of Trump’s name from the state’s Republican primary ballot, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown.

The four-justice majority emphasized the gravity of their decision, acknowledging the weighty questions at hand and their duty to apply the law impartially. Trump’s campaign promptly announced its intention to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Colorado justices, anticipating this move, placed their ruling on hold until at least January 4.

The decision, specific to Colorado, may compel the Supreme Court to address the broader issue nationally, given the unprecedented nature of the case. Legal experts speculate that the high court, with its conservative majority and Trump-appointed justices, is likely to face intense political scrutiny.

This ruling adds to the array of Trump-related cases the Supreme Court is already considering, ranging from immunity to criminal prosecution to the scope of obstruction charges related to the January 6 events. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for Trump’s political future.

In response, Trump’s campaign denounced the decision, portraying it as politically motivated and vowing confidence in a favorable Supreme Court ruling. Meanwhile, Republican officials rallied around Trump, and potential primary rivals Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley criticized the ruling as an abuse of judicial power.

The case centered on whether the Capitol breach constituted an insurrection and if Trump’s actions before and during the event aligned with this charge. Additionally, the court deliberated on the authority to enforce Section 3 without specific congressional designation and whether it applied to the presidency.

Notably, three dissenting justices objected on procedural grounds, expressing concern about potential chaos and the lack of procedural due process in state-by-state adjudication of Section 3 disqualification cases.

Legal experts underscored the novelty of the case, grappling with constitutional questions without clear precedent. Section 3, crafted after the Civil War, was originally intended to bar Confederacy members from holding office. The ruling, though carefully crafted, leaves room for the U.S. Supreme Court to offer a different perspective on these unprecedented constitutional issues.