The 14th Amendment is at the center of the Colorado challenge against Trump. Here's what it says
From CNN's Marshall Cohen
A Colorado judge ruled last month that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents.
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says American officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919 – which is why many experts view these lawsuits as long shots.
The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidentiall electors – but it does not say anything about presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.
“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”
The major decision issued by Wallace came after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballots. Legal scholars believe these cases will, in some form, end up at the US Supreme Court. But before that, the GOP and independent voters who filed the Colorado lawsuit in coordination with a liberal watchdog group, appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.
However, the 102-page ruling in Colorado offered a searing condemnation of Trump’s conduct, labeling him as an insurrectionist who “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters,” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”
Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”
11 min ago
Key moments from the historic Colorado disqualification trial
From CNN's Marshall Cohen
Supporters of President Donald Trump flock to the National Mall by the tens of thousands for a rally on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Samuel Corum/Getty Images
The case against former President Donald Trump in Colorado revolved around his history of stoking political unrest, his public call for supporters to flock to Washington, DC, for a “wild” protest on January 6, and his instruction that they march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory.
In the eyes of the challengers, these actions clearly rose to the level of “engaging in insurrection” against the US Constitution – which is the bar for disqualification set by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The weeklong bench trial in November featured firsthand accounts from US Capitol Police officers who were wounded fending off the pro-Trump mob on January 6, video clips of Trump’s incendiary speech before the riot and testimony from an expert on right-wing extremism who said far-right brawler groups like the Proud Boys interpreted Trump’s words as “a call to violence.”
An attorney for the challengers, Sean Grimsley, said at closing arguments that “the Constitution does not allow” Trump to return to office, no matter his standing in the polls.
“Our founders have made clear, time and again, that a candidate’s popularity does not supersede the Constitution,” Grimsley said. “The rule of law must apply whether a candidate has no chance of winning election or is a potential frontrunner. The application of Section 3 is at its most urgent when a person who has desecrated their oath to support the Constitution seeks the highest office in the land.”
Trump’s lawyers called witnesses who said his team tried to avoid violence that day and that he had authorized National Guard troops to keep DC safe on January 6.
Even before the trial, they unsuccessfully argued that the case should be thrown out because the allegations against Trump were largely based on his speech before the riot, which they claimed was protected by the First Amendment and did not meet the legal standard for inciting violence.
“They’re making up the standard so that it fits the facts of January 6,” Gessler, the Trump lawyer, said in his opening statement at the trial, adding that Trump “didn’t carry a pitchfork to the Capitol grounds, he didn’t lead a charge, he didn’t get in a fistfight with legislators,” but rather “gave a speech in which he asked people to ‘peacefully and patriotically’ go to the Capitol to protest.”
The trial was also a history lesson in the Civil War, the tumultuous Reconstruction era, the congressional debate over drafting and ratifying the 14th Amendment, and the application of its insurrectionist ban.
Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca, perhaps the nation’s top scholar on the provision, testified in favor of removing Trump from the ballot. He explained how thousands of former Confederates were disqualified from office, including some who never took up arms, even one congressman-elect who had only written a letter-to-the-editor advocating violence against Union troops.
37 min ago
Colorado trial previews what could come in federal election subversion case against Trump
From CNN's Marshall Cohen
Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters after he was endorsed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott at the South Texas International Airport on Sunday, Nov. 19 in Edinburg, Texas. Eric Gay/AP
In some ways, the trial in Colorado that looked at whether the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” disqualifies Donald Trump from serving as president again because of his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection served as a preview of the much higher-profile federal election subversion trial against Trump that is slated for March.
In that criminal case, Trump wasn’t charged with inciting the riot, or with insurrection. But the indictment from special counsel Jack Smith quotes from Trump’s January 6 speech and describes how he fueled the violence. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
This was a major part of the Colorado case, and federal prosecutors might similarly seek to feature testimony from police officers and lawmakers who can describe how Trump’s actions obstructed the certification of the 2020 election results.
Trump’s defense in Colorado relied heavily on January 6 revisionism and featured testimony from an unrepentant US Capitol rioter and others who still maintain the 2020 election was stolen.
In terms of trial strategy, these witnesses could undercut the challengers’ argument that January 6 was an insurrection. The 14th Amendment doesn’t actually define the term.
One of the January 6 rally organizers, Amy Kremer, testified in the Colorado case that the crowd at the Ellipse was full of “patriotic, freedom-loving citizens” who were “joyful, singing and dancing,” including after Trump wrapped his remarks. After her testimony, Kremer posted online a photo of the overrun Capitol and said, “The 2020 Election was stolen!”
Trump’s lawyers say this showed that his words didn’t incite violence, a core element of his defense. Plenty of rallygoers ignored Trump’s call to go to the Capitol. Many who did march there stayed peaceful. But thousands participated in a violent riot, as highlighted earlier in the trial by two of the 140 police officers who were wounded in the melee.
One rioter, Tom Bjorklund, testified for Trump’s defense and admitted on the stand that he breached Capitol grounds, though he said he never entered the building. Bjorklund, now the Colorado GOP treasurer, hasn’t been charged with any crimes and testified that he didn’t engage in violence at the Capitol.
“It’s kind of an insult to insurrectionists around the world,” Bjorklund said. “Because Republicans just mad about an election hardly rises to the level of an insurrection.”
37 min ago
Takeaways from the blockbuster Trump "insurrectionist ban" ruling in Colorado
Analysis from CNN's Marshall Cohen
Judge Sarah B. Wallace presides over closing arguments in a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Wednesday, November 15. Jack Dempsey/Pool/AP
A Colorado judge on November 17 issued a stunning ruling that fell just short of removing Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban. The 102-page decision was a win for Trump, but it read more like a condemnation.
Nonetheless, it’s the latest legal victory for the GOP frontrunner, who has now defended his spot on the ballot in several key states, including Michigan and Minnesota, though appeals are underway.
Now the Colorado Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Wednesday on appeals to the November ruling.
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919 – which is why many experts view these lawsuits as long shots.
Legal experts believe the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in, one way or another, before the 2024 primaries begin.
The Colorado ruling isn’t binding on other courts, but it’s the most comprehensive fact-finding to date by a judge about Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. And it could factor into future challenges that are brought for the general election or even to block Trump from taking office if he wins next November.
Here are some takeaways from the major ruling in Colorado:
Trump engaged in insurrection, judge says Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace concluded – based on testimony of US Capitol Police officers, lawmakers, clips from Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech and expert testimony about right-wing extremism – that Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection.
This was a major legal hurdle that the challengers were able to overcome. And it’s the first time that any court in the country has ruled that Trump engaged in the insurrection, a watershed moment in the quest for accountability for January 6.
Wallace determined that Trump “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”
She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”
While this lawsuit is not a criminal case, it is a highly notable finding. It aligns closely with the federal criminal charges filed by special counsel Jack Smith, who accused Trump of illegally obstructing the Electoral College proceedings.
It’s unclear how this could impact the criminal case. But very few judges in the country have examined Trump’s post-election conduct as closely as Wallace has in this litigation.
The Colorado Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday on appeals to a 14th Amendment challenge to former President Donald Trump’s candidacy. Listen to the arguments live here.
Trump’s team and the group trying to remove the former president from the Colorado 2024 ballot appealed different parts of a lower-court ruling last month, which found that Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021. The judge, however, rejected removing Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents.
The Colorado ruling is the latest legal victory for the GOP frontrunner, who has now defended his spot on the ballot in several key states ahead of the 2024 primary season, including in Michigan and Minnesota, though appeals are underway.
A Colorado judge ruled last month that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents.
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says American officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919 – which is why many experts view these lawsuits as long shots.
The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidentiall electors – but it does not say anything about presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.
“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”
The major decision issued by Wallace came after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballots. Legal scholars believe these cases will, in some form, end up at the US Supreme Court. But before that, the GOP and independent voters who filed the Colorado lawsuit in coordination with a liberal watchdog group, appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.
However, the 102-page ruling in Colorado offered a searing condemnation of Trump’s conduct, labeling him as an insurrectionist who “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters,” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”
Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”
Supporters of President Donald Trump flock to the National Mall by the tens of thousands for a rally on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Samuel Corum/Getty Images
The case against former President Donald Trump in Colorado revolved around his history of stoking political unrest, his public call for supporters to flock to Washington, DC, for a “wild” protest on January 6, and his instruction that they march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory.
In the eyes of the challengers, these actions clearly rose to the level of “engaging in insurrection” against the US Constitution – which is the bar for disqualification set by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The weeklong bench trial in November featured firsthand accounts from US Capitol Police officers who were wounded fending off the pro-Trump mob on January 6, video clips of Trump’s incendiary speech before the riot and testimony from an expert on right-wing extremism who said far-right brawler groups like the Proud Boys interpreted Trump’s words as “a call to violence.”
An attorney for the challengers, Sean Grimsley, said at closing arguments that “the Constitution does not allow” Trump to return to office, no matter his standing in the polls.
“Our founders have made clear, time and again, that a candidate’s popularity does not supersede the Constitution,” Grimsley said. “The rule of law must apply whether a candidate has no chance of winning election or is a potential frontrunner. The application of Section 3 is at its most urgent when a person who has desecrated their oath to support the Constitution seeks the highest office in the land.”
Trump’s lawyers called witnesses who said his team tried to avoid violence that day and that he had authorized National Guard troops to keep DC safe on January 6.
Even before the trial, they unsuccessfully argued that the case should be thrown out because the allegations against Trump were largely based on his speech before the riot, which they claimed was protected by the First Amendment and did not meet the legal standard for inciting violence.
“They’re making up the standard so that it fits the facts of January 6,” Gessler, the Trump lawyer, said in his opening statement at the trial, adding that Trump “didn’t carry a pitchfork to the Capitol grounds, he didn’t lead a charge, he didn’t get in a fistfight with legislators,” but rather “gave a speech in which he asked people to ‘peacefully and patriotically’ go to the Capitol to protest.”
The trial was also a history lesson in the Civil War, the tumultuous Reconstruction era, the congressional debate over drafting and ratifying the 14th Amendment, and the application of its insurrectionist ban.
Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca, perhaps the nation’s top scholar on the provision, testified in favor of removing Trump from the ballot. He explained how thousands of former Confederates were disqualified from office, including some who never took up arms, even one congressman-elect who had only written a letter-to-the-editor advocating violence against Union troops.
Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters after he was endorsed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott at the South Texas International Airport on Sunday, Nov. 19 in Edinburg, Texas. Eric Gay/AP
In some ways, the trial in Colorado that looked at whether the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” disqualifies Donald Trump from serving as president again because of his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection served as a preview of the much higher-profile federal election subversion trial against Trump that is slated for March.
In that criminal case, Trump wasn’t charged with inciting the riot, or with insurrection. But the indictment from special counsel Jack Smith quotes from Trump’s January 6 speech and describes how he fueled the violence. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
This was a major part of the Colorado case, and federal prosecutors might similarly seek to feature testimony from police officers and lawmakers who can describe how Trump’s actions obstructed the certification of the 2020 election results.
Trump’s defense in Colorado relied heavily on January 6 revisionism and featured testimony from an unrepentant US Capitol rioter and others who still maintain the 2020 election was stolen.
In terms of trial strategy, these witnesses could undercut the challengers’ argument that January 6 was an insurrection. The 14th Amendment doesn’t actually define the term.
One of the January 6 rally organizers, Amy Kremer, testified in the Colorado case that the crowd at the Ellipse was full of “patriotic, freedom-loving citizens” who were “joyful, singing and dancing,” including after Trump wrapped his remarks. After her testimony, Kremer posted online a photo of the overrun Capitol and said, “The 2020 Election was stolen!”
Trump’s lawyers say this showed that his words didn’t incite violence, a core element of his defense. Plenty of rallygoers ignored Trump’s call to go to the Capitol. Many who did march there stayed peaceful. But thousands participated in a violent riot, as highlighted earlier in the trial by two of the 140 police officers who were wounded in the melee.
One rioter, Tom Bjorklund, testified for Trump’s defense and admitted on the stand that he breached Capitol grounds, though he said he never entered the building. Bjorklund, now the Colorado GOP treasurer, hasn’t been charged with any crimes and testified that he didn’t engage in violence at the Capitol.
“It’s kind of an insult to insurrectionists around the world,” Bjorklund said. “Because Republicans just mad about an election hardly rises to the level of an insurrection.”
Judge Sarah B. Wallace presides over closing arguments in a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Wednesday, November 15. Jack Dempsey/Pool/AP
A Colorado judge on November 17 issued a stunning ruling that fell just short of removing Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban. The 102-page decision was a win for Trump, but it read more like a condemnation.
Nonetheless, it’s the latest legal victory for the GOP frontrunner, who has now defended his spot on the ballot in several key states, including Michigan and Minnesota, though appeals are underway.
Now the Colorado Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Wednesday on appeals to the November ruling.
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919 – which is why many experts view these lawsuits as long shots.
Legal experts believe the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in, one way or another, before the 2024 primaries begin.
The Colorado ruling isn’t binding on other courts, but it’s the most comprehensive fact-finding to date by a judge about Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. And it could factor into future challenges that are brought for the general election or even to block Trump from taking office if he wins next November.
Here are some takeaways from the major ruling in Colorado:
Trump engaged in insurrection, judge says Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace concluded – based on testimony of US Capitol Police officers, lawmakers, clips from Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech and expert testimony about right-wing extremism – that Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection.
This was a major legal hurdle that the challengers were able to overcome. And it’s the first time that any court in the country has ruled that Trump engaged in the insurrection, a watershed moment in the quest for accountability for January 6.
Wallace determined that Trump “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”
She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”
While this lawsuit is not a criminal case, it is a highly notable finding. It aligns closely with the federal criminal charges filed by special counsel Jack Smith, who accused Trump of illegally obstructing the Electoral College proceedings.
It’s unclear how this could impact the criminal case. But very few judges in the country have examined Trump’s post-election conduct as closely as Wallace has in this litigation.
