Colorado Ruling Knocks Trump Off Ballot: What It Means, What Happens Next (2024)



Supported by


The challengers who sought to disqualify Donald J. Trump prevailed on every legal issue, but the case is almost certainly headed for the Supreme Court, where they would have to do so again.

By Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington


The Colorado voters who sought to disqualify Donald J. Trump from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot ran the table on eight distinct legal issues on Tuesday night. To ultimately keep him off the ballot, though, they almost certainly will have to do so again — in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 4-to-3 decision that set off a political and legal earthquake, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday said that Mr. Trump had engaged in insurrection and therefore was barred by the 14th Amendment from holding federal office.

“This is a major and extraordinary holding from a state supreme court,” Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, wrote on the Election Law Blog. “Never in history has a presidential candidate been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Supreme Court review seems inevitable, and it exerts major pressure on the court.”

The majority on Tuesday said every key legal issue came out against Mr. Trump.

“The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president,” the majority said in an unsigned opinion, saying that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results amounted to engaging in an insurrection and that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, bars insurrectionists from federal office, including the presidency.

The majority added: “We do not reach these conclusions lightly. 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.”

But the court gave Mr. Trump a provisional escape route. It put its ruling on hold through Jan. 4, and if he seeks review in the U.S. Supreme Court, as he said he will, the state court said his name would remain on the primary ballot.

It could take some time for the justices to act, and the Colorado Republican primary, scheduled for March, could proceed unaffected. The justices may have to grapple with the case’s many interlocking legal issues, which are novel, complex and extraordinarily consequential. Indeed, courts in other states have come to differing conclusions on some of the questions.

The justices may also be reluctant to withdraw from the voters the decision of how to assess Mr. Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election.


Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Congress can remove the prohibition, the provision says, but only by a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

Though the provision was devised to address the aftermath of the Civil War, it was written in general terms and, most scholars say, continues to have force. Congress granted broad amnesties in 1872 and 1898. But those acts were retrospective, scholars say, and did not limit Section 3’s prospective force.

A Colorado trial judge had ruled that Mr. Trump had engaged in insurrection but accepted his argument that Section 3 did not apply to him, reasoning that Mr. Trump had not sworn the right kind of oath and that the provision did not apply to the office of the presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the first part of the trial judge’s ruling — that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election; trying to alter vote counts; encouraging bogus slates of competing electors; pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution; and calling for the march on the Capitol.

But the majority reversed the part of the trial judge’s decision that said the Section 3 provision did not bar Mr. Trump from seeking re-election.

That view has its critics. In an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal in September, Michael B. Mukasey, who served as attorney general under President George W. Bush, wrote that Section 3 is limited to people who had taken an oath to support the Constitution “as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state.”

The only category that even arguably applies to Mr. Trump is “an officer of the United States,” Mr. Mukasey wrote. But that phrase, he asserted, “refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones.”

In a law review article first published in August, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas, disagree with Mr. Mukasey.

Their article concluded that “the ordinary sense of the text” of the Constitution, “the structure and logic of its provisions,” “the evident design to be comprehensive,” “the seeming absurdity of the prospect of exclusion of the offices of president and vice president from triggering the disqualification” and other factors “all convince us that the natural conclusion is the correct one: Section 3 includes in its coverage, or ‘triggering’ language, insurrectionists who once served as president and vice president.”

They added that “a reading that renders the document a ‘secret code’ loaded with hidden meanings discernible only by a select priesthood of illuminati is generally an unlikely one.”

Other scholars, notably Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law Houston and Seth Barrett Tillman of Maynooth University in Ireland, say that Section 3 does not cover Mr. Trump. There is, they wrote, “substantial evidence that the president is not an ‘officer of the United States’ for purposes of Section 3.”

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the presidency is covered by the provision. “President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”

The state Supreme Court addressed several other issues. Congress does not need to act to disqualify candidates, it said. Mr. Trump’s eligibility is not the sort of political question that is outside the competence of courts. The House’s Jan. 6 report was properly admitted into evidence. Mr. Trump’s speech that day was not protected by the First Amendment, it said.

The court added that states are authorized under the Constitution to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates. “Were we to adopt President Trump’s view,” the majority wrote, “Colorado could not exclude from the ballot even candidates who plainly do not satisfy the age, residency and citizenship requirements” of the Constitution.

The case reminded some election law scholars of Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to Mr. Bush.

“Once again the Supreme Court is being thrust into the center of a U.S. presidential election,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “But, unlike in 2000, the general political instability in the United States makes the situation now much more precarious.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak



As an expert in constitutional law and legal analysis, I can provide insights into the complex and unprecedented legal issues discussed in the article about the Trump Colorado Ballot Ruling. My expertise extends to constitutional amendments, specifically the 14th Amendment, and the implications of legal decisions on presidential candidacy and eligibility.

The article discusses a groundbreaking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, where the challengers sought to disqualify Donald J. Trump from the state's 2024 Republican primary ballot. The court ruled 4-to-3, asserting that Trump had engaged in insurrection and, therefore, was barred by the 14th Amendment from holding federal office.

Let's break down the key concepts used in the article:

  1. 14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified after the Civil War, includes Section 3, which bars individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office. The article explains that the Colorado Supreme Court invoked this provision to disqualify Trump.

  2. Insurrection and Section 3: The court found that Trump's actions, including attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, encouraging false slates of electors, and pressuring the vice president, constituted insurrection. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to disqualify him from seeking re-election.

  3. Legal Precedent and Unprecedented Decision: The article notes that this decision is unprecedented in U.S. history. Legal experts, such as Derek Muller from the University of Notre Dame, emphasize the significance of the court's holding, highlighting that no presidential candidate has been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment before.

  4. Supreme Court Review: The article anticipates that the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision is described as a major and extraordinary holding, putting pressure on the highest court to review the case.

  5. Interpretation of Section 3: Legal scholars, including Michael B. Mukasey, William Baude, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, present different interpretations of Section 3. Mukasey argues for a limited application, while Baude and Paulsen contend that the provision covers insurrectionists who once served as president.

  6. Comparisons to Bush v. Gore: The article draws parallels to the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, emphasizing the potential impact of the decision on a U.S. presidential election and the current political instability.

In conclusion, the article explores the legal complexities surrounding the Trump Colorado Ballot Ruling, delving into constitutional provisions, legal interpretations, and the potential implications for future Supreme Court decisions.

Colorado Ruling Knocks Trump Off Ballot: What It Means, What Happens Next (2024)


Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Twana Towne Ret

Last Updated:

Views: 5513

Rating: 4.3 / 5 (64 voted)

Reviews: 95% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Twana Towne Ret

Birthday: 1994-03-19

Address: Apt. 990 97439 Corwin Motorway, Port Eliseoburgh, NM 99144-2618

Phone: +5958753152963

Job: National Specialist

Hobby: Kayaking, Photography, Skydiving, Embroidery, Leather crafting, Orienteering, Cooking

Introduction: My name is Twana Towne Ret, I am a famous, talented, joyous, perfect, powerful, inquisitive, lovely person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.