US Supreme Court to hear Trump Colorado appeal

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Donald Trump’s appeal of a judicial decision barring the former president from the state’s Republican primary ballot, taking up a politically explosive case with major implications for the 2024 presidential election.

At issue is the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling on 19 December disqualifying Mr Trump from the state’s primary ballot based on language in the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment for engagingin insurrection, involving the 6 January 2021, attack by his supporters on the US Capitol.

The justices took up the case with unusual speed. Mr Trump, the frontrunner for his party’s nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the November election, filed his appeal on Wednesday.

The justices indicated they would fast-track a decision, scheduling oral arguments for 8 February. The Colorado primary is scheduled for 5 March.

The state court, acting in a challenge to Mr Trump by Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado, found him ineligible for the presidency under a constitutional provision that bars anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office, barring him from the primary ballot.

The US Supreme Court did not act on a separate appeal of the state’s court decision by the Colorado Republican Party.

The Colorado case thrusts the Supreme Court – whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Mr Trump – into the unprecedented and politically fraught effort by his detractors invalidate his bid to reclaim the White House.

Mr Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung praised the court’s decision to hear the case, characterising the disqualification efforts as “part of a well-funded effort by left-wing, political activists hell-bent on stopping the lawful re-election of President Trump this November, even if it means disenfranchisingvoters.”

Colorado’s Secretary of State Jena Griswold said people in her state and around the United States “deserve clarity on whether someone who engaged in insurrection may run for the country’s highest office.”

Read more:
Biden says Trump willing to ‘sacrifice democracy’ to regain power
The Republicans challenging Trump for US presidential nomination
How did the US presidential campaign get to be so long?
Iowa Caucus 2024: How does it work and why is it important?

Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog representing the challengers to Mr Trump, added, “We’re glad that the Supreme Court will definitively decide whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot. We look forward to presenting our case and ensuring the constitution is upheld.”

Many Republicans have decried the disqualification drive as election interference, while proponents of disqualification have said holding Mr Trump constitutionally accountable for an insurrection supports democratic values.

Mr Trump already faces criminal charges in two cases related to his effort to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

Trump also has appealed to a Maine state court a decision by that state’s top election official barring him from the primary ballot under the same constitutional provision at issue in the Colorado case.

High stakes for the Supreme Court

While the Colorado case could hamper Mr Trump’s bid to win back the presidency, it also has major implications for the justices.Given the political nature of the dispute, they run the risk of appearing partisan whichever way they lean.

Their action will shape a wider effort to disqualify Mr Trump from other state ballots as the 2024 election draws closer. Colorado and Maine are both Democratic-leaning states. Nonpartisan US political analysts forecast that both states are unlikely to back a Republican presidential candidate on 5 November.

But there are efforts under way in other states – including competitive Michigan – that could shape the election’s outcome.

The Colorado court’s ruling marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – the so-called disqualification clause – was used to deem a presidential candidate ineligible.

Section 3 bars from holding office any “officer of the United States” who took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War of 1861-1865 in which Southern states that allowed the practice of slavery rebelled in a bid for secession.

Among other arguments, Mr Trump’s lawyers have said that Section 3 does not apply to US presidents, that the question of presidential eligibility is reserved to Congress, and that he did not participate in an insurrection.

The Republican and unaffiliated voters who sued to disqualify Mr Trump from the ballot disagree. In a filing on Thursday, they emphasised the lower court’s findings that Mr Trump’s intentional “mobilising, inciting, and encouraging” of an armed mob to attack the Capitol meets the legal definition in Section 3.

“This attack was an ‘insurrection’ against the Constitution by any standard,” they said in the filing.

The 6 January attack was an attempt by Mr Trump’s supporters to prevent Congress from certifying Mr Biden’s election victory. Mr Trump gave an incendiary speech to his supporters before the attack, repeating his false claims of widespread voting fraud in the election.

Mr Biden in a speech in Pennsylvania yesterday cast Mr Trump as a threat to American democracy, one of the themes of his re-election campaign. Mr Biden specifically made reference toTrump’s speech before the Capitol riot, whose three-year anniversary is today. Mr Biden also suggested that a vote for Mr Trump this year was a vote for a dictatorship.