SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
colorado supreme court
'Disgraceful' Supreme Court Hands Victory to Trump in 14th Amendment Case
The 9-0 ruling which reverses a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, warned one pro-democracy watchdog, "undermines the integrity of our Constitution and emboldens those seeking to disrupt and dismantle our democratic systems."
Mar 04, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump a resounding legal victory on Monday by rejecting a push by Colorado voters to have him disqualified from the state's ballot under a clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that the former president was guilty of insurrection due to his actions leading up to and on January 6, 2021.
Though the Colorado Supreme Court last year ruled in favor of the argument to exclude Trump in this year's election, Monday's 9-0 ruling said, "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse."
The decision by the nation's highest court was unanimous, though Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—the three remaining liberals on the Court—signed a concurring opinion in the judgment, indicating a varied reason for supporting the underlying decision. In addition to Colorado, officials in Maine and Illinois have moved to remove Trump from the ballot.
"The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution's built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."
Supporters of the effort to disqualify Trump from seeking public office due to his insurrectionary words and deeds following his loss in the 2020 election, which he refused to accept, condemned Monday's ruling.
"This decision is disgraceful," said Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech For People (FSFP), which pioneered the first litigation under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and co-led the successful Illinois challenge. "The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution's built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."
Legal experts said the ruling did not hinge on the question of whether or not Trump was, in fact, guilty of insurrection but only that Colorado was not qualified to invoke the 14th Amendment.
"Yes, the Supreme Court ruled for Trump based on only Congress having the power to enforce the 14th amendment," said Norm Eisen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and an outspoken Trump critic. "But just as important as what they did is what they didn't do. They did not expressly challenge that he was an insurrectionist—and the concurrence emphasizes that finding."
Nonetheless, Common Cause called the ruling a "major setback for democracy" that sets a worrying precedent.
"This decision undermines the integrity of our Constitution and emboldens those seeking to disrupt and dismantle our democratic systems. For over 200 years, all but one of our leaders have abided by the Constitution and practiced the peaceful transfer of power," said Kathay Feng, the group's vice president of programs.
"This ruling reverses the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, and with it, green lights future presidents to intimidate, threaten, and attack Congress into obedience," Feng added. "Our Constitution depends on checks and balances. Removing states as a check on tyrannical presidents threatens the future of our democracy."
In its statement, FSFP similarly said the ruling was "dangerous" as it "encourages Trump–and those who follow his example–to engage in more insurrections and disregard more broadly the Constitution."
"As one Senator explained in 1866 when advocating for Section 3, 'the man who has once violated his oath will be more liable to violate his fealty to the Government in the future,'" the group noted. "The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment learned this lesson in blood, and gave us Section 3 to prevent a repeat. With today's ruling, the Supreme Court has utterly failed in its duty to uphold this constitutional mandate at this critical moment in history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thomas Refusal to Recuse From Trump Case Called a 'Giant Middle Finger' to Democracy
"Ginni Thomas' involvement in the seditious conspiracy that led to the January 6 insurrection is a bald-faced conflict of interest," argued one watchdog.
Feb 08, 2024
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who once went a full decade without speaking during oral arguments, asked the first question Thursday as the high court heard a case challenging former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for a second White House term.
But Thomas, whose initial question focused on whether the 14th Amendment is "self-executing," shouldn't even be involved in the case, progressive watchdogs and other observers argued, given his wife Ginni's role in far-right efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election—an effort that culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
"The Supreme Court is facing its most significant electoral test since Bush v. Gore. The stakes are high, and the American people should be able to trust that this case will be decided without outside influence," Tishan Weerasooriya, senior associate of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, said in a statement shortly before oral arguments kicked off Thursday.
"Justice Thomas should recuse himself from this monumental case," Weerasooriya added. "Ginni Thomas' involvement in the seditious conspiracy that led to the January 6 insurrection is a bald-faced conflict of interest. If Thomas refuses, it will not only be a blatant denial of impartial review but also a rejection of Chief Justice [John] Roberts' recently issued Code of Conduct."
That code states that "a justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." A University of Massachusetts at Amherst survey released Wednesday found that 64% of U.S. voters believe Thomas should recuse from any case related to the 2020 election given his wife's role in trying to subvert the results.
Will Bunch, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, argued that Thomas' failure to recuse from the case on Trump's eligibility "is a giant middle finger to American democracy."
"It's no wonder public trust in the court is terrible. Corrupt Thomas should resign."
The case in question, Trump v. Anderson, stems from the Colorado Supreme Court's December ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection and is thus disqualified from running for federal office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump quickly appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to an expedited review of the case amid the 2024 presidential primaries.
Just over a week after the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its ruling, Maine's secretary of state moved to disqualify Trump from the 2024 primary ballot—a decision that was paused by a state judge pending the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Anderson.
As oral arguments in the case proceeded Thursday, Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) wrote that "Clarence Thomas is participating in a Supreme Court hearing today on Donald Trump's eligibility after trying to overthrow the government even though Thomas' wife conspired to help Trump."
"It's no wonder public trust in the court is terrible," Pascrell continued. "Corrupt Thomas should resign."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson supporting the former president's disqualification, noted in an analysis released earlier this week that Colorado and Maine are "the only two states that have substantively grappled with whether the 14th Amendment bars Trump from the ballot and reached a final decision based on the merits."
"Other individuals and groups have brought ballot eligibility challenges in other states across the country, some of which are pending and many of which have failed," CREW observed. "None of the cases that have been dismissed reached the stage where a court heard evidence and ruled on the merits, which includes questions of whether Trump is an insurrectionist and whether the 14th Amendment applies in his case."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Fleeing on Jan. 6, GOP Lawmakers Urge Supreme Court to Keep Trump on Ballot
The ex-president also filed a brief and claimed that ballot disqualification efforts "promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado's lead."
Jan 18, 2024
Two-thirds of congressional Republicans on Thursday signed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state primary ballot.
The country's highest court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife was involved in efforts to overturn President Joe Biden's 2020 win—agreed to take the case earlier this month, just before the start of the presidential primary season, which is now underway.
With arguments scheduled for February 8, the deadline for Trump's brief on the merits as well as any amicus curiae—or "friend of the court"—briefs like the one submitted by 179 Republican lawmakers, was Thursday. It was led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), and other supporters include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
The voters behind the Colorado case—like other lawsuits and applications to election officials across the country—successfully argued that Trump's incitement of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, while Congress was certifying Biden's win, disqualifies him from serving as president again, because the 14th Amendment prohibits anyone who took an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.
After having to flee the Trump-supporting rioters three years ago, the Republican lawmakers argued Thursday that "the Colorado Supreme Court's decision encroaches on Congress' express powers," claiming that federal lawmakers "must pass authorizing legislation to enforce Section 3" of the 14th Amendment.
"The Colorado Supreme Court also erred by rejecting the argument that Section 3 is inapplicable to former President Trump, as he was never previously 'an officer of the United States,'" the GOP lawmakers claimed. The brief also contests the court's definitions of "engaged in" and "insurrection," and warns that the decision "will lead to widespread de-balloting of political opponents."
Trump's lawyers also filed his brief on Thursday, writing that "the court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado's lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots."
So far, only Maine has joined Colorado in disqualifying the twice-impeached former president during the primary stage, but that decision is on hold until the high court weighs in.
"Donald Trump sent an armed mob to the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the election, violating the Constitution and undermining the will of the people. He should not be given another opportunity to do so again," said Aly Belknap, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, in a statement Thursday.
"Former President Trump's eligibility for the Colorado ballot has broad-reaching implications for the permissible conduct of future presidents and other public officials," she continued. "In a strong democracy, elections are decided by the voters at the ballot box, not with violence or intimidation. The Supreme Court has the power to set a critical legal precedent to safeguard the future of American democracy: You cannot stoke political violence against your own country and hold elected office."
Belknap asserted that "the Supreme Court must embrace its role as an active defender of our Constitution, or else it may crumble under the immense pressure it will surely face in the years to come. Just as we argued in our brief to the Colorado Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court must not allow politics to supersede constitutional requirements."
Take Back the Court Action Fund's president, Sarah Lipton-Lubet, declared that "if congressional Republicans want Trump on the ballot, they should simply pass a bill exempting him from the 14th Amendment's prohibition on insurrectionists holding office, as the Constitution specifies. But they've grown so accustomed to the Supreme Court doing their dirty work that they're hoping it will again."
In addition to the 14th Amendment arguments, Trump is facing four ongoing criminal cases—two of which stem from his 2020 election interference. Despite all of that, he won the Iowa caucuses on Monday and is the leading Republican candidate in other states. On the Democratic side, Biden is seeking reelection.
This post has been updated with comment from Colorado Common Cause and Take Back the Court Action Fund.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular