The Colorado Supreme Court issued a landmark verdict barring Donald Trump from the ballot

Tuesday’s decision by a divided Colorado Supreme Court to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot and declare him ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause set up a likely national court showdown over whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can continue in the race.

It is the first time in history that a presidential contender has been disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment thanks to the ruling of a court whose judges were all chosen by Democratic governors.

In its 4-3 ruling, the court stated that “a majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

The highest court in Colorado reversed a district court judge’s decision, finding that Trump incited an insurrection for his involvement in the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, but holding that he could not be disqualified from the election due to the ambiguity surrounding the provision’s application to the presidency.

The court postponed making a ruling until January 4th, or until the US Supreme Court rendered a ruling on the matter. By January 5, which is the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots, Colorado authorities believe the matter needs to be resolved.

The majority of the court stated, “We do not reach these conclusions lightly.” We acknowledge the importance and gravity of the questions that are currently in front of us. We also recognize that it is our grave responsibility to uphold the law, free from fear or favor, and unaffected by the opinions of the general public regarding the choices that the law requires us to make.

Trump’s legal team had pledged to promptly challenge any disqualification to the highest court in the country, which has the last say on constitutional issues.

In a statement released Tuesday night, Trump’s legal representative Alina Habba said: “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy.” This unconstitutional decree will not survive, and we have faith that the Supreme Court will overturn it.

Trump’s team issued a fundraising email noting the case, referring to it as a “tyrannical ruling,” but the president made no mention of it during a rally in Waterloo, Iowa, on Tuesday night.

Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, called the finding “election interference” and stated that the RNC’s legal staff will support Trump in appealing the decision.

Colorado was a 13-point loss for Trump in 2020, and he won’t need the state to win the presidency the following year. The risk for the former president, however, is that additional election officials and courts will decide to follow Colorado’s example and bar Trump from states where he needs to win.

In an attempt to disqualify Trump under Section 3, which was created to prevent former Confederates from entering politics after the Civil War, dozens of cases have been filed across the country. It has been in effect since the decade following the Civil War and prohibits the removal from office of anyone who took an oath to “support” the Constitution and subsequently “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it.

Following the verdict on Tuesday, Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame who has been closely following the Section 3 cases, stated, “I think it may embolden other state courts or secretaries to act now that the bandage has been ripped off.” “This poses a serious danger to Trump’s campaign.”

The plaintiffs have won in their first case, which is in Colorado. District Judge Sarah B. Wallace concluded after a week-long hearing in November that Trump had, in fact, “engaged in insurrection” by instigating the attack on the Capitol on January 6. However, her decision to retain him on the ballot was mostly procedural.

Wallace was persuaded by Trump’s attorneys that since Section 3 refers to “officers of the United States” who swear to “support” the Constitution, the president—who isn’t listed as a “officer of the United States” anywhere in the document—must not be covered by the language because his oath is to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution.

The clause further states that all offices “under the United States” are covered, including senatorial, representative, and presidential and vice presidential electorates. The presidency is not mentioned.

The highest court in the state disagreed, siding with the lawyers for six Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado who contended that it was absurd to think that the amendment’s framers, who were afraid of former Confederates regaining power, would forbid them from holding low-level positions but not the nation’s highest one.

In the majority ruling, the court stated that President Trump requested that Section 3 be upheld, which disqualifies all oath-breaking insurrectionists save the most powerful one and prevents oath-breakers from holding almost all state and federal offices save the highest one in the land. “Both outcomes contradict Section 3’s history and plain language.”

The decision was applauded by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the left-leaning organization that initiated the Colorado action.

Its president, Noah Bookbinder, issued a statement saying, “Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government.”

The Colorado High Court was also urged by Trump’s legal team to overturn Wallace’s decision, which found that Trump encouraged the attack on January 6. His attorneys contended that the former president had not called for violence, but had only been exercising his right to free expression. Additionally, Trump’s lawyer Scott Gessler contended that the incident was more akin to a “riot” than an uprising.

Several justices looked at that with mistrust.

“Isn’t it sufficient that a mob acting violently broke into the Capitol building while Congress was carrying out a fundamental constitutional duty?” remarked Justice William W. Hood III during the arguments on December 6. “It seems like a poster child for rebellion in some ways.”

The majority of the court rejected the claims made by Trump’s supporters that he was not accountable for the violent incident, which was meant to prevent Congress from certifying the presidential vote, in its decision on Tuesday. They stated, “President Trump then delivered a speech in which he practically urged his supporters to fight at the Capitol.”

Hood, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez, and Richard L. Gabriel of the Colorado Supreme Court made the decision in favor of the petitioners. Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright dissented, claiming that a state hearing was insufficient to resolve the constitutional issues because they were too complicated. Carlos Samour and Maria E. Berkenkotter, two justices, also dissented.

In his dissent, Samour stated that “our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law.” “We cannot declare a candidate disqualified from holding public office until due process has been followed, even if we are convinced that they have engaged in insurrection or horrific acts in the past.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled last month that the state party is free to include anyone on its primary ballot, in contrast to the Colorado verdict. A Section 3 case was dismissed, but the plaintiffs were given the opportunity to retry during the general election.

A Michigan judge decided in another 14th Amendment case that Congress, not the courts, need to determine whether or not Trump is permitted to be on the ballot. The decision is being challenged. Free Speech For People, the liberal organization that brought both lawsuits, also filed a second complaint in Oregon with the goal of removing Trump from the ballot.

Liberal donors who also back President Joe Biden fund both organizations. Even though Biden has no involvement in the lawsuits against him, Trump has blamed the president for them, claiming that his opponent is “defacing the constitution” in an attempt to sabotage his campaign.

Trump’s supporters sprang to his defense, denouncing the choice as “un-American,” “insane,” and a politically driven attempt to derail his campaign.

Elise Stefanik, chair of the House Republican Conference, released a statement saying, “Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election.”