Efforts to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot as an insurrectionist are gaining momentum. The legal battle commenced in Colorado, the first of two states to consider this matter this week. Those advocating for Trump’s disqualification rely on a rarely invoked provision of the 14th amendment, which prohibits individuals from holding public office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
They argue that Trump’s alleged incitement of the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol aligns with this constitutional clause, which has never been rigorously tested in court. Court hearings in Denver and Minnesota are expected to serve as a precursor to potential proceedings in the U.S. Supreme Court. Regardless of the lower court outcomes, these cases are likely to face swift appeals, making the legal dispute extend into the 2024 general election season.
While eligibility challenges for presidential candidates are not new, Trump’s case raises unique and incendiary constitutional questions. Supporters of his disqualification, including prominent figures like Senator Tim Kaine, argue that the January 6th Capitol attack aimed to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, a direct violation of the 14th amendment.
In the Colorado court, Trump’s lawyers have fervently opposed the lawsuit, portraying it as a politically motivated effort to thwart his presidential ambitions. They contend that Trump’s actions were protected by free speech and did not constitute insurrection.
Numerous cases referencing the 14th amendment have been filed recently, but those in Colorado and Minnesota are considered particularly significant. These cases are well-funded and follow a more legally sound approach, aiming to compel election officials to disqualify Trump based on constitutional grounds.
The lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) alleges that Trump’s actions during the Capitol attack violated his oath and disqualified him from holding public office under the 14th amendment. Trump’s legal team insists that this provision has not been invoked for 150 years and that the plaintiffs have misconstrued its application.
In the intricate legal battle to come, the future of Donald Trump’s potential run for the presidency remains uncertain, with ramifications that could shape the 2024 electoral landscape.