Legal expert responds to Colorado Supreme Court’s bombshell Trump ruling

The Colorado Supreme Court announced a bombshell decision on Tuesday, December 19, ruling, 4-3, that 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is disqualified from the state ballot under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Section 3 states that an "officer" who has engaged in "insurrection" is ineligible to hold political office.

This decision overturns a lower court ruling in Colorado, where, on November 17, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace agreed that Trump engaged in "insurrection" after the 2020 election but argued that as president, he didn't fit the 14th Amendment's definition of "officer." The Colorado Supreme Court, however, disagreed with Wallace's ruling.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

University of Baltimore law professor Kimberly Wehle, a former federal prosecutor, offers legal analysis of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on December 19.

"Both the lower court and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed on a key fact: that Trump engaged in an insurrection or rebellion within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bans such people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution from holding office again," Wehle explains. "The Colorado Supreme Court departed from the lower court's ruling on one technical question: whether the office of the president — and someone who has already taken an oath as president — are covered by Section 3."

Wehle, a scathing Trump critic, continues, "The district court had said no. The Colorado Supreme Court said yes."

The legal expert points out that all seven of the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors, including the three dissenters in the December 19 ruling. Trump's attorneys plan to appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the option of either taking or not taking the case.

READ MORE: Trump disqualified from primary ballot in Colorado, state high court rules: report

"Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take this case, and how the justices would rule, is anyone's guess," according to Wehle. "The easy out would be to deny the appeal on the rationale that voting eligibility is for the states to decide under state law, or that the bigger questions need to percolate more at the state level before the Court could be bothered."

The law professor adds, "With Colorado's primary on March 5, this approach would be a legal loss for Trump. The politics are harder to divine at this point: The ruling could prove a political boon for him, galvanizing MAGA voters and lots of money."

READ MORE: Jenna Ellis is poised to become Trump's worst nightmare: legal experts

Kimberly Wehle's full Bulwark article is available at this link.