CO plaintiffs urge SCOTUS to keep 'oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump' off ballot

In a Friday filing submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the plaintiffs in the Anderson v. Griswold case that disqualified former President Donald Trump from Colorado's Republican primary ballot are urging the nation's highest court to uphold the original ruling.

The Messenger reported that the central argument made by the plaintiffs — which consist of four Republican voters and two unaffiliated voters — is that Trump violated the presidential oath of office to protect and defend the US Constitution when he egged on the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol. The Anderson plaintiffs stated that "Trump intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate effort to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him," and in doing so, violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (also known as the insurrection clause).

Plaintiffs further elaborated that the insurrection clause "is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

"Trump’s followers injured over 140 law enforcement officers, left one dead, and forced Congress and Vice President Pence to flee for their lives from the House and Senate chambers," the brief read. "By spearheading this attack, Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution."

In late 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision stating that the former president did indeed engage in insurrection under "any definition" of the word. The insurrection clause states that any candidate for any "civilian or military" federal office will not be qualified if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States, or gave "aid and comfort to the enemies thereof."

Because of conservative SCOTUS justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh openly endorsing the conservative legal doctrines of textualism and originalism during their confirmation hearings, one legal scholar said that it's likely they could be seriously considering disqualification under an originalist reading of the insurrection clause. Additionally, a Yale law professor argued that those justices ruling against the former president could help bolster the Court's reputation as a neutral interpreter of the Constitution above partisan influence.

After SCOTUS granted a writ of certiorari in Anderson v. Griswold, that means a decision will be issued on Trump's eligibility before the Court's current term ends this June.

READ MORE: Legal expert reveals how Trump's SCOTUS justices benefit by disqualifying him from ballot