> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Colorado Supreme Court Rules Trump Ineligible for 2024 Primary Ballot Under 14th Amendment in 4-3 Decision
- URL: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/taq-historical-2023-12-23-us/
- Published: 2023-12-24T04:59:00.000Z
- Updated: 2023-12-24T04:59:00.000Z
- Description: Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Donald Trump is disqualified from the state’s Republican presidential primary under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, staying its ruling for expected U.S. Supreme Court review.
- Author: TAQ Staff
- Tags: US, #Import 2026-09-01 09:02

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that former President Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on the state’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars a person who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office. The decision is the first by a state’s highest court to disqualify a presidential candidate under the post-Civil War provision.

The court immediately limited the practical effect of its ruling by staying it until Jan. 4 and providing that the stay will remain in place if Trump seeks review from the U.S. Supreme Court before then. Trump’s campaign says it will appeal. The result therefore opens a major constitutional dispute rather than finally resolving whether his name will appear on Colorado’s ballot.

## The majority reverses the trial judge on the presidency question

The Colorado Supreme Court’s [majority opinion](https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23sa300.html?ref=theamericanquorum.com) agreed with the Denver trial court that the events of Jan. 6, 2021 constituted an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it, but rejected the lower court’s conclusion that Section 3 does not apply to the presidency. The majority held that the president is an “officer of the United States” for purposes of the provision and that the presidential oath is an oath to support the Constitution.

Section 3 says that no person shall hold specified federal or state offices if, after taking an oath as a federal or state officer to support the Constitution, that person “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or given aid or comfort to its enemies. Congress may remove the disability by a two-thirds vote of each chamber.

The trial court’s [Nov. 17 order](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court%5FProbation/02nd%5FJudicial%5FDistrict/Denver%5FDistrict%5FCourt/11%5F17%5F2023%20Final%20Order.pdf?ref=theamericanquorum.com) had found that Trump engaged in insurrection through his conduct surrounding Jan. 6 but concluded that the constitutional text did not clearly encompass the presidency. That ruling kept him on the ballot while both sides appealed different portions.

## A state election case becomes a national constitutional test

The case, Anderson v. Griswold, was brought by Colorado voters under state election law. They argued that Secretary of State Jena Griswold could not list a constitutionally ineligible candidate on the primary ballot. Trump argued that Section 3 does not apply to presidents, that the events did not constitute an insurrection in the constitutional sense, that he did not engage in one, and that the state proceeding denied him adequate process.

The Colorado General Assembly’s [case summary](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/cases-note-archive-2023?ref=theamericanquorum.com) notes the unusual interaction between state ballot-administration law and a federal constitutional qualification. The majority reasoned that states routinely determine candidate eligibility and that Colorado’s election code supplies a mechanism for resolving such disputes before ballots are certified.

That reasoning has consequences beyond Colorado because similar challenges have been filed in other states with mixed results. Minnesota’s Supreme Court rejected an effort to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary, while litigation in Michigan has proceeded on different procedural grounds. None of those cases has yet produced a controlling national answer about Section 3’s application to a former president seeking reelection.

## Three dissents emphasize process and federal authority

The 4-3 split underscores how unsettled the legal terrain is. The dissenting justices raised concerns about whether Colorado’s expedited election procedure is adequate for adjudicating a constitutional disqualification of this magnitude, whether Congress must create a federal enforcement mechanism, and whether the state court was moving beyond the proper scope of ballot litigation.

The Colorado Bar Association’s [case analysis](https://cl.cobar.org/from-the-courts/anderson-v-griswold/?ref=theamericanquorum.com) summarizes the competing approaches within the court. The majority treats Section 3 as a constitutional qualification that courts can enforce through ordinary election-law processes. The dissents stress that disqualifying a major presidential candidate implicates federal interests and due-process questions far beyond a routine state eligibility dispute.

Those disagreements are likely to become central if the U.S. Supreme Court accepts review. The justices could address the meaning of “officer of the United States,” the definition and enforcement of Section 3, the role of Congress, the authority of state courts, or narrower procedural questions.

## The ruling does not prevent Trump from campaigning nationally

The immediate decision concerns Colorado’s primary ballot, not a nationwide candidacy ban. The [Associated Press](https://apnews.com/article/d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2?ref=theamericanquorum.com) described the ruling as unprecedented and noted that the court anticipated rapid review because election deadlines are approaching. The stay reflects that practical reality.

Trump remains the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. His campaign called the decision anti-democratic and said voters, not judges, should decide the election. Supporters of the Colorado challenge argue that constitutional eligibility provisions are themselves part of the democratic framework and must be enforced even when politically consequential.

Colorado Public Radio’s [contemporary account](https://www.cpr.org/2023/12/19/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-from-ballot/?ref=theamericanquorum.com) notes that Griswold’s office faces a Jan. 5 deadline to certify the presidential primary ballot. That compressed calendar increases the likelihood that any Supreme Court review will move quickly.

## Section 3 returns to the center of constitutional law

Section 3 was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officials who had joined or supported rebellion against the United States from returning to public office. It has rarely been litigated in modern presidential politics, leaving sparse precedent on core questions now before courts.

The Colorado majority’s conclusion is sweeping but carefully procedural: it says Trump is disqualified under Section 3 and directs the secretary of state not to list him unless the ruling is superseded through appeal. It does not impose criminal punishment, and it does not depend on a criminal conviction for insurrection. The proceeding instead concerns constitutional qualification for office.

Critics argue that this makes judicial findings in election cases too powerful, particularly when voters have not yet chosen their nominee. Supporters argue that other constitutional qualifications — age, citizenship and residency — are enforced before elections and that Section 3 should not be treated differently merely because its application requires more difficult factual findings.

The [KUNC/AP coverage](https://www.kunc.org/politics/2023-12-19/colorado-supreme-court-bans-trump-from-the-states-ballot-under-constitutions-insurrection-clause?ref=theamericanquorum.com) captures the decision’s immediate national significance: a provision written in the aftermath of the Civil War is now directly implicated in the 2024 presidential election. Colorado has supplied one answer. The expected appeal will determine whether the U.S. Supreme Court is prepared to supply one for the country.