top of page
  • Dispatches From Trumpland

Colorado Throws Spike Strip in Trump's Path. Trump ploughs on.

In a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves through the political landscape, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a divided decision, declared former President Donald Trump ineligible to run for the presidency under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause, effectively removing him from the state’s presidential primary ballot. This unprecedented application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a provision historically aimed at preventing former Confederates from holding office after the Civil War, sets the stage for a likely Supreme Court showdown that will have profound implications for the 2024 presidential race and beyond.

The court, comprised entirely of justices appointed by Democratic governors, reached a 4-3 decision, highlighting the contentious nature of the case and the broader political and legal debates surrounding Trump's eligibility. The majority’s ruling overturns a district court judge’s decision, which, while finding Trump incited the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, stopped short of barring him from the ballot due to uncertainties around the provision’s applicability to presidential candidates.

The decision to stay the ruling until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, underscores the urgency and complexity of the issue, given the tight timeline for finalizing presidential primary ballots by Jan. 5. This move not only highlights the judicial system’s awareness of the significant ramifications of their decision but also sets a deadline for a potentially historic Supreme Court case.

The majority’s rationale, deeply rooted in a concern for the integrity of the democratic process and the Constitution, reflects a broader interpretation of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, arguing against the notion that it would exclude the presidency from its scope. This interpretation, emphasizing the framers' intent to safeguard the republic from those who would undermine it through insurrection or rebellion, challenges Trump’s defense and could have far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of the Constitution and the eligibility criteria for presidential candidates.

Trump’s immediate promise to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, along with his legal team's and supporters’ vehement criticism of the ruling as an attack on democracy, signals the beginning of a highly charged legal and political battle. The case not only tests the limits of constitutional law but also delves into the fraught territory of defining insurrection and the responsibilities of those who hold or seek the highest office in the land.

Moreover, the potential for this decision to inspire similar actions in other states poses a significant threat to Trump’s candidacy. The ruling could set a precedent, emboldening courts and election officials in other jurisdictions to exclude Trump from ballots, a development that would dramatically alter the electoral landscape and the strategic calculus for both the Republican Party and its opponents.

The broader political implications of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision cannot be overstated. As the first successful application of the insurrection clause against a presidential candidate, this case marks a critical juncture in American political history. The ruling not only reignites debates over the events of Jan. 6 and their impact on American democracy but also forces a confrontation with the constitutional mechanisms designed to protect the nation from internal threats.

Looking ahead, the Supreme Court's handling of this case will be closely watched, with potential outcomes ranging from affirming the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to overturning it on various constitutional grounds. Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to have a lasting impact on the legal interpretations of eligibility for public office, the balance of free speech and accountability for public officials, and the broader political dynamics as the 2024 presidential election approaches.

In the meantime, Trump’s campaign and its allies are rallying support, framing the legal challenge as a broader attack on his movement and the democratic process. The escalation of this legal battle to the Supreme Court will not only be a decisive moment for Trump’s political future but also a litmus test for the resilience of American democracy and the rule of law. As observers and participants alike brace for the next phases of this unfolding saga, the coming months promise to be a period of intense legal scrutiny, political mobilization, and profound reflection on the principles that underpin American governance.


bottom of page