This week marks a crucial juncture in the ongoing battle to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballots, based on his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Two pivotal lawsuits, unfolding simultaneously in state courtrooms in Colorado and Minnesota, stand at the forefront of this legal challenge, with the potential to propel the case to the highest echelons of the U.S. legal system, including the Supreme Court.
The lawsuits, emblematic of dozens scattered across the nation, hinge on a post-Civil War-era clause of the 14th Amendment. This provision prohibits individuals who have “engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution from holding higher office. Advocates contend that Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, culminating in the harrowing events of January 6, 2021, when the U.S. Capitol was besieged, render him ineligible for the presidency, akin to disregarding the constitutional requirement of natural-born citizenship.
In a Denver courtroom on Monday, attorneys representing the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Trump campaign clashed over these contentious issues. Eric Olson, the lawyer representing a group of Colorado voters advocating for Trump’s exclusion from the ballot, emphatically argued that Trump had “summoned and organized the mob” that attacked the Capitol. “We are here because Trump claims, after all that, he has the right to be president again,” Olson declared. “But our Constitution – our shared charter of our nation – says he cannot do so.”
Conversely, Trump’s legal team, facing federal and criminal trials in Washington, D.C., and Atlanta over his 2020 activities, portrayed the legal battle as premature. They contended that Trump hadn’t been certified as a candidate yet and challenged the standing of the plaintiffs, suggesting they lacked the right to sue.
The linchpin of these lawsuits, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a provision rarely invoked since the aftermath of the Civil War, specifically prohibits individuals who participated in insurrection or rebellion from holding federal office. Trump’s attorneys argue that this provision was never intended to apply to the presidency, as the office is not explicitly mentioned in the text. Scott Gessler, representing Trump, emphasized, “When it comes to deciding who should lead our nation, it’s the people of the United States of America who get to make those decisions – not six voters in Colorado. This lawsuit seeks to cancel that principle. This lawsuit is anti-democratic.”
This week’s legal saga doesn’t end in Colorado; parallel arguments will unfold in Minnesota’s Supreme Court, where similar claims can directly ascend to the state’s highest legal authority. Anticipating an unfavorable outcome, either side is poised to swiftly petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a final resolution.
As the nation’s attention remains riveted on these courtroom battles, the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its potential impact on the eligibility of a former president to re-enter the political arena stand at the heart of a profound constitutional and legal debate, the repercussions of which could resonate far beyond the confines of these two courtrooms.
