Current:Home > MarketsRead the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case -Capital Dream Guides
Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case
View
Date:2025-04-27 18:36:11
Washington — In a stunning decision that could have major ramifications for the 2024 presidential election, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office again and ordered the secretary of state to remove his name from the state's primary ballot.
The court paused its decision until Jan. 4, one day before the deadline for certifying the candidates for the state's March 5 primary, and said the pause will remain in place if Trump asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision by then. Trump's campaign has said he will do just that, meaning his name will likely remain on the state's March 5 primary ballot after all.
- What to know about the Colorado Supreme Court's Trump ruling, and what happens next
Still, the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case, one that could threaten Trump's eligibility for the presidency if the high court rules against him. The Colorado court determined that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the insurrection clause, bars Trump from holding federal office due to his actions in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
"We conclude that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot," the court's majority wrote.
The Colorado Supreme Court's opinion in the Trump case
In their 133-page opinion, the four justices in the majority acknowledged that "we travel in uncharted territory, and that this case presents several issues of first impression." Justices Richard Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez and William Hood formed the majority.
The justices rejected claims from Trump's lawyers that the breach of the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6 was not an insurrection and instead concluded that the record in the case "amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country."
Read their full majority opinion here:
The majority found that Trump "did not merely incite the insurrection," but "continued to support it" by continuing to urge then-Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally toss out state Electoral College votes.
"These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection," the majority wrote.
The justices wrote that accepting Trump's argument would mean the secretary of state is powerless to remove someone who doesn't meet the Constitution's other requirements to become president.
"Were we to adopt President Trump's view, Colorado could not exclude from the ballot even candidates who plainly do not satisfy the age, residency, and citizenship requirements of the Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II," they wrote. "It would mean that the state would be powerless to exclude a twenty-eight-year-old, a non-resident of the United States, or even a foreign national from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado."
The minority's dissenting opinions in the Colorado Trump case
The three justices who were in the minority — Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justices Carlos Samour and Maria Berkenkotter — each wrote their own opinions dissenting with the ruling. They each took issue with various portions of the court's opinion, and expressed concerns about what they saw as a lack of due process for denying Trump's access to the primary ballot.
In his dissent, Boatright said that the section of Colorado's election code under which the case was brought "was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection."
Samour wrote that the decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." The litigation in the case, Samour continued, "fell woefully short of what due process demands."
Berkenkotter wrote that she disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the state's election code "authorizes Colorado courts to decide whether a presidential primary candidate is disqualified" under Section 3, and warned that the majority's "approach seems to have no discernible limits."
Stefan Becket is assistant managing editor, digital politics, for CBSNews.com. He helps oversee a team covering the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, immigration and federal law enforcement.
TwitterveryGood! (5488)
Related
- New Mexico governor seeks funding to recycle fracking water, expand preschool, treat mental health
- Arizona Diamondbacks take series of slights into surprise World Series against Texas Rangers
- US military says Chinese fighter jet came within 10 feet of B-52 bomber over South China Sea
- Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down new law giving participants right to change venue
- From family road trips to travel woes: Americans are navigating skyrocketing holiday costs
- AP Week in Pictures: Asia
- Billy Ray Cyrus' wife Firerose credits his dog for introducing them on 'Hannah Montana' set
- Lionel Messi is a finalist for the MLS Newcomer of the Year award
- Could your smelly farts help science?
- National Air Races get bids for new home in California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming
Ranking
- Federal court filings allege official committed perjury in lawsuit tied to Louisiana grain terminal
- Bar struck by Maine mass shooting mourns victims: In a split second your world gets turn upside down
- Gulf oil lease sale postponed by court amid litigation over endangered whale protections
- AP Week in Pictures: Asia
- Current, future North Carolina governor’s challenge of power
- In closing days of Mississippi governor’s race, candidates clash over how to fund health care
- 'Shock to the conscience': 5 found fatally shot in home near Clinton, North Carolina
- There is no clear path for women who want to be NFL coaches. Can new pipelines change that?
Recommendation
The company planning a successor to Concorde makes its first supersonic test
The Golden Bachelor Just Delivered 3 Heartbreaking Exits and We Are Not OK
5 people found shot to death in North Carolina home: This is not normal for our community
Soil removal from Ohio train derailment site is nearly done, but cleanup isn’t over
Working Well: When holidays present rude customers, taking breaks and the high road preserve peace
Gunman opens fire on city of Buffalo vehicle, killing one employee and wounding two others
One trade idea for eight Super Bowl contenders at NFL's deal deadline
Lionel Messi is a finalist for the MLS Newcomer of the Year award