Trump’s 14th Amendment disqualification lawsuit: What you need to know about the Colorado case

Politics

The continued existence of former President Donald J. Trump’s 2024 campaign is being challenged this week in a modest Colorado courtroom.

The lawsuit stems from a lawsuit filed by voters in the state who claim that Mr. Trump is ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution because of his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol .And the Colorado disqualification case is not an isolated case. Oral arguments from a similar lawsuit in Minnesota are expected to begin Thursday.

Here’s a look at the Colorado case and beyond.

What is the background to the Colorado lawsuit?

It was filed in September in a district court in Denver by six Colorado voters — four Republicans and two independents — who are suing with the help of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

These voters argue that Mr. Trump’s presence in next year’s Republican primaries would harm them by siphoning support from their preferred candidates and, if he were to win the nomination, by depriving them of the opportunity “to vote for a qualified candidate.” vote in the general election”. .”

They are demanding that Colorado’s secretary of state not print Mr. Trump’s name on the ballot, and are asking the court to rule that Mr. Trump is disqualified to end all “uncertainty.”

What is the 14th Amendment and what does it say?

The Colorado case specifically addresses Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or an elector of the President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath , as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of a state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, in support of the Constitution of the United States, has been engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or aid or comfort given to the enemies thereof. But Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, can remove such a disability.

The central questions are whether the 14th Amendment applies to the presidency; whether Mr. Trump’s conduct before and on January 6 amounts to “engaging in an insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution; and whether election officials or the courts can declare an individual ineligible under Section 3 without specific action by Congress to identify that individual.

Constitutional experts have emphasized in interviews with The New York Times that the answers to these questions are not simple or self-evident.

In public writings, some scholars have argued that Mr. Trump does not qualify. In an academic article, conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen concluded: “It is undoubtedly fair to say that Trump was ‘involved in’ the January 6 insurrection, both through his actions and his inaction.” Others have argued the opposite, as law professors Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman say in a recent concept paper that they see “no good basis” for the conclusions of Mr Baude and Mr Paulsen.

What does the plaintiffs’ side say?

From Monday through Wednesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs – the six Colorado voters – called seven witnesses:

Daniel Hodgesa police officer from Washington, DC, and Winston Pingeon, a Capitol Police officer, who was in the Capitol on January 6. They testified that rioters were equipped with tactical gear and made it clear they believed they were acting on behalf of Mr. Trump. Under cross-examination, Mr. Trump’s lawyers tried to distance him from the rioters, noting that the officers had no way of knowing that any individual rioter had heard his speech.
Representative Erik Swalwell, Democrat of California, who said lawmakers had read Trump’s Twitter posts during the attack and saw them as related “to our own security in the House and also to the integrity of the proceedings.” Under cross-examination, Mr. Trump’s lawyers cited Mr. Swalwell’s own Twitter post, in which he urged Democrats to “fight” against abortion restrictions and asked whether that was a call to violence; Mr. Swalwell said no.
William C Banks, professor of law at Syracuse University and expert on presidential authority in national security. He testified that Mr. Trump could have deployed National Guard troops without a request or permission from local officials.
Peter Simi, professor of sociology at Chapman University and expert on political extremism. He testified that the far-right used “doublespeak” – language that insiders understood as inciting violence, but which maintained plausible deniability. He said Trump spent years building credibility with members of groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers so they saw him as an ally who spoke to them in that way.
Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University and an expert on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He said that when the amendment was ratified, “insurrection” meant “any public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to obstruct or prevent the implementation of the law”, and that “involvement” meant “any voluntary act in furtherance of an insurrection, including seditious words.”
Hilarius Rudy, a deputy elections director in the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. She testified that the Secretary of State was legally required to grant voting rights only to qualified candidates, that courts could play a legitimate role in determining who was qualified, and that the office would abide by whatever the court decided.

What does Trump’s side say?

As of Thursday morning, Trump’s lawyers had called three witnesses:

Kashyap Patel, a former chief of staff of the Ministry of Defense. He testified that Mr. Trump had preemptively authorized the deployment of 10,000 to 20,000 National Guard troops to keep the peace on Jan. 6, and that they were absent because Washington’s mayor had not requested them. Under cross-examination, Mr. Patel said he was not aware of any document showing Mr. Trump’s consent.
Katrina Pierson, a former spokeswoman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, who described internal disagreements over who should speak at Mr. Trump’s Jan. 6 rally. She testified that Trump ignored most of the scheduled speakers, including the most inflammatory ones. She also said he had expressed a desire for 10,000 National Guard troops.
Amy Kremer, an organizer of the Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse, described the same disagreements over the speaker list as Ms. Pierson and promoted Mr. Trump’s lies about a stolen election. She called the rally participants “freedom-loving citizens” and “happy warriors” and said she saw no indication of violence or violent intent while Mr. Trump was speaking. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged that she had been in the area requiring magnetometer scans, and that she would not have seen anything that had happened outside that area.

Mr. Trump’s team plans to call several more witnesses on Thursday and Friday, including an expert who will offer a different interpretation than Professor Magliocca’s of the language in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

What did the judge say?

Before the trial began on Monday, Mr. Trump’s team filed several motions to dismiss the case. Judge Sarah B. Wallace, who is overseeing the trial, rejected them.

On Wednesday, after prosecutors finished calling most of their witnesses, Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked for a “directed verdict” — a conclusion, before the defense had called witnesses, that no legally sufficient basis existed to allow the prosecutors to prevail. They argued that even if the plaintiffs’ claims were accepted as fact, it would not legally justify Mr. Trump’s disqualification. His words, they argued, did not meet the Supreme Court’s standards for incitement and were therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Judge Wallace denied the request, but emphasized that her denial should not be construed as a ruling on the legal issues involved — including whether Mr. Trump “participated in an insurrection” as defined by the 14th Amendment, and whether the First Amendment possibilities limited 14th could be applied.

Instead, she said she was denying the request because to grant it “I would have to decide many legal issues that I am simply not prepared to do today.”

What happens now?

It’s not clear how long it will take for Judge Wallace to rule after the trial ends Friday.

However, the process is performed under an accelerated process with the goal of having a final resolution before the January deadline so that the Colorado Secretary of State can confirm who will participate in the primary vote – and all involved understand that her initial ruling must allow sufficient time for the appeals to be heard as well dissolve.

The United States Supreme Court is expected to have the final say.

Chris Cameron And Alyce McFadden reporting contributed.