Wednesday’s Colorado Supreme Court argument over Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility didn’t provide a clear answer to how exactly the court will rule. But it reinforced the need for the U.S. Supreme Court to sort out the 14th Amendment issue one way or the other — and sooner rather than later.
One of the state justices, William Hood, observed that if his court were to keep the former president off the ballot, then the U.S. Supreme Court would likely step in and decide.
So if the Colorado court were to say Trump can stay on the ballot, then the U.S. Supreme Court could effectively avoid the matter by declining to review such a ruling, which would maintain the status quo of Trump being able to run.
But with cases across the country raising the issue, there are dangers to not resolving it nationwide as soon as possible. Hood noted that failing to do so now creates potential for “chaos” in January 2025.
Both sides are appealing Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace’s ruling last month that found Trump engaged in insurrection but nonetheless can be on the ballot because, she reasoned, the relevant constitutional provision doesn’t apply to presidents.
The challengers have argued, among other things, that it would be absurd to let an insurrectionist hold the highest office in the land but bar lower officeholders.
The relevant provision listing officeholders who are disqualified under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban specifically names congressional representatives, for example, but not presidents. The challengers have argued, among other things, that it would be absurd to let an insurrectionist hold the highest office in the land but bar lower officeholders.
“If it was so important that the president be included, I come back to the question: Why not spell it out?” Colorado Justice Carlos Samour asked a lawyer for voters challenging Trump’s eligibility.
On the insurrection point that went against Trump at the trial level, his lawyer Scott Gessler said during Wednesday’s hearing that Jan. 6 was just a “riot” and that more needed to have happened for it to have been an “insurrection.” Notably, unlike the legal question about whether presidents can be disqualified under Section 3 of the amendment, Judge Wallace’s factual finding that Trump engaged in insurrection is entitled to more deference on appellate review.
Among the questions lingering in the appeal is also whether the state’s courts have jurisdiction over the issue, which adds another layer of uncertainty to the court’s forthcoming ruling. Whatever Colorado’s high court decides, one can expect a further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but which side prevails in Colorado will likely dictate how urgently the U.S. justices will feel the need to act.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.
