Scott Eisen/Getty Images
Former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event in Claremont, New Hampshire, on November 11, 2023.
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal in the appellate court. Challenge to the 14th Amendment Ahead of former President Donald Trump’s candidacy and oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 6.
Trump’s team Groups trying to remove him from Colorado ballots Based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” President Trump last week ruled that he “engaged in insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but that the ban does not apply to his presidency. Appealed various parts of the lower court’s decision.
Many experts believe the lawsuit, filed by Republicans and independent voters in conjunction with the liberal Washington watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility, will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court in some form. I believe it is.
Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace made an astonishing 102-page decision. On Friday, the report found that President Trump “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, but later declared the 14th Amendment “insurrectionist” based on the amendment ratified in 1868. It concluded that the “prohibition” does not apply to the president. of the Civil War.
The law says U.S. government officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution will be barred from holding future public office if they “engage in insurrection.” This provision specifically prohibits insurrectionists from serving as U.S. senators, congressmen, or even presidential electors, but it says nothing about the presidency. The law covers “all civil and military offices under the control of the United States,” but Mr. Wallace ruled that this does not include the presidency.
This important finding is one that anti-Trump challengers hope will be overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.
“No court should adopt a constitutional interpretation that produces such an unreasonable result,” the challengers wrote in their appeal. “Fortunately, in this case, the text and the history are all consistent with common sense results. Article III disqualifies insurrectionists who break their oath from nearly all public offices except the highest. It does not give an insurgent president a free pass of his own.”
All seven justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors. Six of the seven subsequently won statewide Remain elections and remained on the bench. The seventh was only appointed in 2021, and he has yet to face voters.
Anti-Trump lawyer Sean Grimsley told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Monday that his appeal was successful in overturning “one issue” that the judge “misunderstood” who was covered by the ban. He said he was “hoping” to do so. ‘t – Applies to.
“We intend to pursue our claims in court. I think we made a very good case. The judge issued a very detailed and thorough opinion. It took 95 pages of a 102-page opinion to rule against us, so we’ll just move on. We’ll go to the Colorado Supreme Court and see what happens there. I’m going to try it.”
Other parts of Wallace’s ruling slammed Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. She concluded that the former president “actively incited the anger of his extremist supporters” and “acted with the specific intent of inciting political violence and directing it toward the Capitol.”
03:32 – Source: CNN
‘Do you really think this is a victory yet?’ Collins confronts Trump lawyer
“This is an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters by removing us from the ballot,” President Trump said at a campaign rally in Iowa on Saturday. “We have now defeated voter eligibility fraud perpetrated by radical Democrats in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and other states.”
Trump too appealed the decisionobjected to several of the judge’s findings, including the judge’s finding that he was “involved” in the January 6 riot.
Trump’s lawyers argue that Wallace “correctly” concluded that the insurrectionist ban does not apply to the president.
But they told the Colorado Supreme Court that she had “created an unprecedented and unsupported new legal standard in applying” the constitutional disqualification clause. “The court committed a serious judicial and legal error,” it said, calling for the other rulings to be overturned.
Lawyers note in court filings that it is widely expected that the case will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court, and that the lawsuit could be subject to “further consideration” He said he would like the problem fixed.
This headline and story have been updated with additional developments.