1 of 3 The Trump campaign said the Colorado action was aimed at “stretching the law beyond recognition” Photo: Carlos Barria/Portal The Trump campaign said the Colorado action was aimed at “stretching the law beyond recognition.” to expand beyond recognition” Photo: Carlos Barria/Portal
The clause cited was Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who have committed “insurrection or rebellion” against the constituted power from holding federal office.
This is the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to make it impossible to run for president. The lawsuit against Trump was filed by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) and targets his role in the 2021 attacks on the Capitol.
The state court's ruling is on hold until January, pending an appeal, and does not apply to other states.
The final ruling will likely fall to the conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which Trump helped shape.
In the Colorado case, the plaintiffs appear to have intended to take their arguments from there to the highest court in the land.
The legal argument about the Constitutional Clause, initially supported by liberals, has gained traction in recent months as some conservatives have also taken it up.
The Colorado Supreme Court was the first to recognize the argument and bar Trump from the state's 2024 presidential election.
By then, several lawsuits against Trump with similar arguments in other states had been unsuccessful.
A lawsuit in New Hampshire was dismissed; A judge in Michigan ruled that the issue was a “political” matter that should be decided by Congress, not the state; and a Minnesota court rejected the effort before the primary, but left the door open for applicants to file another challenge in the election. General elections.
The legal strategy is a final attempt to block the candidacy of a former president who remains popular with his base.
Despite the growing problems in court, Trump remains the favorite for the Republican presidential nomination and is tied with President Joe Biden in election polls.
The Trump campaign said the action in Colorado aimed to “stretch the law beyond recognition” and had no basis “except in the minds of those who defend it.”
“Democratic Party leaders are in a state of paranoia due to President Trump’s growing and dominant lead in the polls,” spokesman Steven Cheung said.
“They have lost faith in Biden’s failed presidency and are now doing everything they can to prevent American voters from throwing them from office in November.” [de 2024]“.
Trump's lawyer in the Colorado case argued that the decisions in Michigan and Minnesota were evidence of “an emerging consensus across the judiciary.”
“Plaintiffs are asking this court to do something that has never been done in the history of the United States,” said attorney Scott Gessler. “The evidence is not nearly sufficient to allow the court to do this.”
The 14th Amendment was ratified after the American Civil War and Section 3 was added to prevent secessionists from returning to previous government positions once the Southern states rejoined the Union.
The clause was used against figures such as Confederate States President Jefferson Davis and his Vice President Alexander Stephens, but has rarely been invoked since.
2 of 3 Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was used against Confederate President Jefferson Davis Photo: Public Domain/Getty Images Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was used against Confederate President Jefferson Davis Photo: Public Domain/Getty Images
The clause resurfaced after Trump sought to overturn his 2020 election defeat, which culminated in the attack on the Capitol in January 2021.
After the attack, the US House of Representatives voted to impeach the president for “incitement of insurrection.”
In the United States, impeachment is the first part the indictment of a political process through which Congress can remove a president from office. If the House votes to authorize articles of impeachment, the Senate must hold a trial.
After a possible conviction decision, the Senate can hold a second vote with a simple majority to prevent a president from returning to office.
But in the case of the Capitol, the Senate failed to reach the twothirds majority needed to convict Trump, even in the first phase.
Does the clause apply to Trump?
The organization Free Speech For People has argued that Trump should be barred from voting under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Last year, the group filed lawsuits against five congresswomen who supported Trump, accusing them of being “insurrectionists.”
One of the lawsuits — against Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — was taken to court but ultimately rejected.
The 14th Amendment was written not just for the postCivil War period, but also against future insurrections, argues Ron Fein, the organization's legal director.
He told the BBC that the attack on the Capitol “delayed the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our country's history, which goes further than the Confederates ever managed.”
“The specific candidates we indicted in 2022 participated in or supported the efforts that led to the insurrection,” Fein argued.
All of these cases, he said, have set important legal precedents that could be used to show that “Trump is the leading insurrectionist.”
In New Mexico, a lawsuit filed by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) resulted in Couy Griffin, a local county commissioner involved in the attack on the Capitol, being removed from office under Section 3 the first decision of the type since 1869.
What are the next steps?
The Colorado lawsuit was filed by the crew group on behalf of six residents of the state.
Despite its unsuccessful attempts in Michigan and Minnesota, the organization Free Speech For People has also announced that it will introduce new actions of this kind. The win in Colorado is likely to spur more such action.
Each lawsuit has already led to, or will inevitably lead to, an objection from the candidates triggering lawsuits that could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
3 of 3 The lawsuit could end up in the Supreme Court, which Trump helped shape as president Photo: Evelyn Hockstein/Portal The lawsuit could end up in the Supreme Court, which Trump helped shape as president Photo: Evelyn Hockstein/Portal
The legal argument gained strength in August when Trump was accused of election subversion in two separate criminal cases.
That same month, conservative legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote in an article that Section 3 “is selfexecuting and constitutes an immediate removal from office without requiring further action by Congress.”
Trump could therefore be deemed ineligible to vote “by all state and federal officials assessing qualifications.” [dos candidatos]“, concluded the lawyer couple.
Baude and Paulsen are members of the Federalist Society, a very influential conservative group.
They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as its authors originally intended.
Even the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority and Trumpappointed trio of justices, could be receptive to the argument, says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, dean of the Yale School of Management, who supports Baude and Paulsen's perspective.
With Republican voters heading to the primaries in less than two months, any measures must be passed quickly.
What do the critics of legal argumentation say?
However, there are several prominent critics of using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump.
In an editorial for Bloomberg, liberal professor Noah Feldman wrote: “Donald Trump is clearly unfit to be president. But it's up to voters to stop him. Magic words from the past will not save us.”
New Hampshire Republican Party President Chris Ager said he was not a supporter of Trump, but rather “neutral” but viewed the initiatives with concern.
“All these attempts are bad for the country. Developing a convoluted legalistic logic to keep people from choosing who to vote for is a Sovietstyle banana republic argument,” Ager said.
Even Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who was once the target of Trump's ire as Georgia's top election official, criticized the lawsuits that invoked the constitutional clause. He argues that they are “just the latest way to game the ballot box.”
But in New Hampshire, the first state in the country to vote in the Republican primary, a prominent Republican lawyer who ran for Senate in 2020 with Trump's support has a different opinion.
“For me, this is all about the Constitution,” said Bryant “Corky” Messner. “The US Constitution is more important than any individual, whether Donald Trump or anyone else.”
Messner wants the courts to give their verdict so he can decide whether or not to support Trump.
“If he is nominated by the Republican Party and is not disqualified, I will vote for him,” he said.