Trump v. Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the Illinois appellate court case addressing the same eligibility issue, see Anderson v. Trump.
Trump v. Anderson
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 8, 2024
Decided March 4, 2024
Full case nameDonald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, Michelle Priola, Claudine Cmarada, Krista Kafer, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian
Docket no.23-719
Citations601 U.S. 100 (more)
ArgumentOral argument
DecisionOpinion
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court, Anderson v. Griswold
Holding
Only Congress, not the states, can determine eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Colorado Supreme Court reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceBarrett (in part and in judgment)
ConcurrenceSotomayor, Kagan, Jackson (in judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3
January 6 United
States Capitol attack
Timeline • Planning
Background
2020 presidential election
and other causes
Related groups and persons
Participants
Notable people
Organizations
Law enforcement response
Aftermath
Biden inauguration
Investigations and charges
Corporate actions
Reactions
Impeachment and 2024 presidential election

Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that states could not determine eligibility for federal office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected former president Donald Trump's presidential eligibility on the basis of his actions during the January 6 Capitol attack, adhering to the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The case was known as Anderson v. Griswold in the Colorado state courts.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump's actions before and during the attack constituted engaging in insurrection; their assertion is that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies presidential candidates who have engaged in insurrection against the United States. The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in Anderson v. Griswold was the first time that a presidential candidate was disqualified from office in a state on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court stayed its decision until a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On January 5, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Trump's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in Anderson v. Griswold on an accelerated pace; oral arguments were held on February 8, 2024. On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision. All nine justices held that an individual state cannot determine eligibility under Section 3 for federal office holders, and that such power is conferred exclusively to the federal government. A majority of the court also ruled that only Congress can enforce Section 3: the courts (federal or otherwise) cannot therefore declare a candidate ineligible for office under the said Section 3 unless an Act of Congress explicitly grants them that power; four justices disagreed with the latter decision and expressed concern in concurrences that this ruling went farther than needed at the time.

Background[edit]

January 6 Capitol attack[edit]

Main article: January 6 United States Capitol attack
See also: Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack, Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case), and Thompson v. Trump

On December 19, 2020, six weeks following his election loss, Trump urged his followers on Twitter to protest in Washington, D.C., on January 6, the day Congress was set to certify the results of the election, writing, "Be there, will be wild!" Over the course of the following weeks, Trump would repeat the January 6 date. Militant organizations and groups affiliated with the conspiracy theory QAnon formulated logistical plans to gather at the United States Capitol. In the lead up to January 6, Trump continued to repeat false claims about election results of various states including Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona.[1] On the morning of January 6, Trump gave a speech in the Ellipse, a park near the White House, and encouraged his followers to walk down to Pennsylvania Avenue to incite within Republicans the "kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country". Provoked by Trump, the mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol.[2]

Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory[edit]

Main article: 2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump
See also: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution § Section Three

Section 3. No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States... who, having previously taken an oath... as an officer of the United States ...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

In August 2023, conservative legal scholars and Federalist Society members William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, in an article to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, posited that Trump is ineligible to be president.[3][4] Baude and Paulsen argue that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment—a section that prevents individuals from holding office who, having "previously taken an oath [...] to support the Constitution of the United States", have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States—applies to Trump through his fraudulent electors plot and "specific encouragement" of January 6, including refusing to call in the National Guard, evidenced by the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack and his second federal indictment. According to Baude and Paulsen, states are given legal obligation and precedent to remove Trump from primary ballots under Article Two of the Constitution, which establishes presidential eligibility requirements. Baude and Paulsen concede, however, that the decision in Griffin's Case (1869) adopted a pragmatic, consequentialist interpretation of Section Three, contrary to their position.[5] In an article to be published in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, law professors Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman responded to Baude and Paulsen, arguing against the basis for a Fourteenth Amendment disqualification of Trump.[6][7]

In March 2022, a district judge ruled that then-representative Madison Cawthorn, who had participated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, could not be barred from the ballot as an insurrectionist due to the Amnesty Act of 1872.[8] In May 2022, by which time Cawthorn had lost in the primary election, the ruling that the Amnesty Act applies was reversed on appeal.[9] In September 2022, Couy Griffin, an Otero County, New Mexico commissioner, was barred from holding public office for life, his participation as the leader of the Cowboys for Trump group during the attack on the Capitol having been found to be an act of insurrection under Section 3.[10][11]

Lower court history[edit]

District Court[edit]

On September 6, 2023, six voters filed a lawsuit in Colorado state district court invoking the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The petitioners included four Republican voters (including former state Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, the titular plaintiff, and former U.S. Representative Claudine Schneider[12]) and two unaffiliated voters. The lawsuit asks for the court to prevent Trump from appearing on the state's Republican presidential primary. Jena Griswold is named as the respondent in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State,[13] while Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee are named as intervenors.[14] The trial began on October 30 with Judge Sarah B. Wallace presiding.[15] Wallace refused a request from Trump's lawyers to dismiss the case.[16]

The court heard from several eyewitnesses, including two police officers and a member of Congress; the case for Trump being disqualified also made use of some findings from the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.[17] Testimony in support of that case was also taken from an expert on far-right extremism and an expert on national security,[18] a constitutional law professor,[19] and an elections administrator.[20]

On November 17, Wallace ruled that Griswold must keep Trump on the ballot but stated that Trump engaged in insurrection by standard of preponderance of the evidence,[21] the first time a judge has explicitly stated Trump incited the January 6 Capitol attack,[22] with regards to his prior rhetoric and inaction during the attack.[23] Wallace stated that Trump was not an officer of the United States with sparse "direct evidence" suggesting the presidency is included as part of the functionary.[24]

The Colorado district court applied a definition whereby, in the context of section 3 of the fourteenth amendment, an insurrection is "a public use of force or threat of force ... by a group of people ... to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States".[25]

Colorado Supreme Court[edit]

The plaintiffs appealed on November 20.[26] The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to take up Anderson v. Griswold on November 21.[27] On December 19, the court ruled in a 4–3 per curiam decision[28] that Trump is disqualified from the primary ballot, reversing the district court's ruling.[29] In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court noted that not all other states have standards to pre-qualify candidates for primary elections, citing the primary election framework in Michigan; election law in Michigan does not include the term "qualified candidate", Michigan courts cannot explicitly assess the qualifications of a candidate, and the Michigan secretary of state's responsibilities are limited in primary elections. Colorado's election code, by contrast, provides the state with greater dominion over the removal of a candidate.[30]

Trump was found to have not merely incited an insurrection, but to have participated in one.[31] The Colorado Supreme Court found it unnecessary to define insurrection, instead holding that "it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of 'insurrection' for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country."[25]

Chief Justice Brian Boatright and justices Carlos Samour and Maria Berkenkotter offered dissenting opinions. Chief Justice Boatright dissented based on the contention that the question of whether a candidate had participated in an insurrection was too broad to be adjudicated under the relevant jurisdictional statute. Justice Samour doubted that the abbreviated trial proceeding on eligibility could have provided adequate due process.[32] He contrasted the amount of due process received by Trump to that which would have been mandatory in a criminal trial for insurrection.[33] Both Justice Samour and Justice Berkenkotter denied that there was a state law cause of action for enforcing Section Three.[34][35]

The court's ruling was initially stayed until January 4, 2024, the day before Colorado's deadline to print primary ballots,[36] though it was indefinitely extended.[37]

Within 24 hours of the ruling, numerous threats of violence and death were made on social media towards the members of the Colorado Supreme Court on the majority opinion.[38] The FBI stated they would investigate these threats alongside state and local police.[39]

Reactions to ruling[edit]

Republican response[edit]

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung stated that the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling eliminated the "rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice".[40] The Trump campaign used the ruling to fundraise, accusing Democrats of attempting to "amass total control over America by rigging the election".[41] Trump did not mention the ruling during a speech hours later in Waterloo, Iowa.[42] He has denied being an insurrectionist.[43]

Presidential candidates Vivek Ramaswamy,[44] Nikki Haley,[45] and Ron DeSantis criticized the decision.[46] Chris Christie, an ardent critic of Trump, stated that Trump should be "prevented from being president of the United States by the voters".[47] Candidate Asa Hutchinson stated that the ruling would "haunt his candidacy"; Hutchinson had drawn attention to the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory during the first Republican debate.[48]

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson described the decision as a "thinly veiled partisan attack".[49] Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he intends to introduce legislation withholding election administration federal funds to states implementing the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory.[50] Colorado U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert wrote that the decision was "designed to suppress the vote and voices of hundreds of thousands of Coloradans".[51]

Vivek Ramaswamy vowed to withdraw from the Colorado primary ballot in protest.[52] The Colorado Republican Party tweeted that it would "withdraw" from the primary and instead use a pure caucus system if the ruling stands.[53]

Democratic response[edit]

President Joe Biden said, in response to the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, that there was "no question" that Trump had supported an insurrection.[54]

Colorado Representative Jason Crow lauded the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling.[55]

Delaware Senator Chris Coons hailed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling barring former President Donald Trump from the state's ballot, calling it "a plain reading of the text of the 14th amendment".[56]

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman criticized the efforts to keep Trump off the ballot as "incredibly unhelpful", stating that any effort to keep Trump off the ballot "just make[s] him more popular and strong. That's just going to energize his base. It's just not helpful." Fetterman closed the statement by saying that Democrats should instead focus on defeating Trump in the polls.[57][58]

California Governor Gavin Newsom also criticized the ruling in Colorado, stating that "There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy, but in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction."[59]

International response[edit]

Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador, wrote that the United States has "lost its ability to lecture any other country about 'democracy'".[60]

U.S. Supreme Court[edit]

The Colorado Republican Party appealed the ruling in Anderson v. Griswold to the Supreme Court of the United States on December 27,[61] which indefinitely extended the Colorado Supreme Court's stay on the ruling.[37] Trump appealed the ruling on January 3, 2024,[62] and the Supreme Court granted the case on an accelerated schedule on January 5,[63] with oral arguments held February 8.[64]

Briefs and amici curiae[edit]

Trump's brief on the merits presented several arguments in support of reversing the decision by Colorado's Supreme Court. Trump's main argument is that Section 3 does not apply to the president as the president should not be considered an "officer of the United States" within the meaning of Section 3.[65] (Notably, Trump's counsel in New York v. Trump had previously argued that the President is in fact an officer of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1442.[66]) The respondents reply in their own brief, "Presidents ... are 'officers' because they hold an 'office'".[67] They frame the case using evidence of the January 6 attack on the Capitol and argue that Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,[67] whereas Trump's brief claims that he had not because he did not personally engage in violence at the Capitol.[65] While Trump's brief claims that his speech at the Ellipse was protected by the First Amendment,[65] theirs argues that it was not because it qualified as an inciting speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio.[67] Whereas Trump's brief claims that disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to holding office, as opposed to running for office,[65] theirs maintains that states have authority to "exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from the ballot", pointing to routine state practices such as exclusion of those not naturally born in the United States.[67]

Trump's brief also urged the Supreme Court to rule in his favor, as a ruling upholding Colorado's decision would encourage, in other states, similar efforts "which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam".[65] The brief from the respondents construes that as a threat, but advised enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to avoid empowering Trump to cause mayhem similar to that which arose "when he was on the ballot and lost".[67]

Amici curiae filed in favor of Trump include a joint brief filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and a brief from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, both citing concerns that Colorado's actions would lead other states to remove presidential candidates from ballots on purely political reasons,[68] and a joint statement from about 180 Republican Congresspersons, led by Ted Cruz and Steve Scalise, who argued that Colorado's action stripped the power from the U.S. Congress in holding of Section 3.[69] The brief from the RNC and NRCC urged the Supreme Court to use a textualist reading, citing Justice Antonin Scalia; Trump's brief also urged a textualist reading.[70]

Briefs filed in support of Colorado include one from twenty-five American Civil War and Reconstruction historians, including Allan Lichtman, James M. McPherson, Vernon Burton, Manisha Sinha, Paul D. Escott, Brooks D. Simpson and Harry L. Watson, explaining the intent of the authors of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to include the presidency, and arguing that that section does not require any further congressional action for enablement;[71][72] a response of several conservative judges and lawyers led by J. Michael Luttig, arguing that courts have authority to decide the issue, and urging the Supreme Court to use a textualist reading that grants Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment its "fair meaning";[73] and one from the Colorado Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, arguing that the state should be able to rely on its own judicial process to deem if a candidate is qualified to be on the ballot.[74] In its brief, the Constitutional Accountability Center urged the court to follow Scalia's textualist concurrence in NLRB v. Canning, which pointed towards the president being an officer of the U.S.[75]

Oral arguments[edit]

At oral arguments, Trump was represented by Jonathan F. Mitchell, the voters who filed the original request were represented by Jason Murray, and Secretary Griswold by Shannon Stevenson of the Colorado Attorney General's office.[70] Justices on both ideological sides appeared to be skeptical of the claim that individual states may determine eligibility under the Fourteenth Amendment, according to observers. Instead, the justices generally asked questions that pointed to the Fourteenth Amendment requiring Congress to take the initiative of this determination.[76] Justice Kavanaugh brought up an 1869 Virginia district court case, Griffin's Case, ruled a year after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, by Justice Salmon Chase, acting in his capacity as an appellate judge, in which the court found that an insurrectionist ban against a judge could not be passed unless Congress passed a law. Justices raised few questions related to the events of January 6.[77][78]

Ruling[edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

In an unsigned per curiam opinion issued March 4, 2024, the court ruled that, as set forth in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has the exclusive power to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment; as such, the Courts (federal or otherwise) cannot declare a candidate ineligible for office under the said Section 3 unless an Act of Congress explicitly grants them that power. Further, the opinion stated that "states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency".[79] The opinion also expressed concern that if this power was left to the states, it would create chaos ahead and after the election and may disenfranchise voters.[79]

While all nine justices agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants this power to the federal government, and not to the individual states, two separate opinions were issued. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the Court's decision that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal officials, but wrote that the court should not have addressed "the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced."[79] Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion co-signed by all three Justices, concurred in the judgment, but said that the court went beyond what was needed for the case and should not have declared that Congress has the exclusive power to decide Section 3 eligibility questions, stating that the Court's opinion had decided "novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioner [Trump] from future controversy."[80][81]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

  1. ^ United States Department of Justice 2023, p. 8-9.
  2. ^ Barry, Dan; Frenkel, Sheera (January 6, 2021). "'Be There. Will Be Wild!': Trump All but Circled the Date". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 28, 2021. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  3. ^ Liptak, Adam (August 10, 2023). "Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 10, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  4. ^ William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Sweep and Force of Section Three, 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. 605 (2024).
  5. ^ Beauchamp, Zack (August 11, 2023). "The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president". Vox. Archived from the original on August 11, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  6. ^ Astor, Maggie. "What is the 14th Amendment, and what does it say?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  7. ^ Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman, Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3, 28 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 350 (forthcoming 2024). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4568771
  8. ^ Weisman, Jonathan (March 4, 2022). "Judge Blocks Effort to Disqualify Cawthorn from Ballot as 'Insurrectionist'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 10, 2022. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  9. ^ Pengelly, Martin (May 25, 2022). "Blow to Madison Cawthorn as appeals court reverses 'insurrectionist' ruling". The Guardian. Archived from the original on January 29, 2024. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  10. ^ Lopez, Ashley (September 6, 2022). "A New Mexico judge cites insurrection in barring a county commissioner from office". NPR. Archived from the original on September 29, 2023. Retrieved September 6, 2022.
  11. ^ Miru (September 6, 2022). "Judge removes Griffin from office for engaging in the January 6 insurrection". CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Archived from the original on November 18, 2022. Retrieved September 6, 2022.
  12. ^ Miru (September 6, 2023). "Lawsuit filed to remove Trump from ballot in CO under 14th Amendment". CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Archived from the original on January 4, 2024. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
  13. ^ Astor, Maggie (September 6, 2023). "Colorado Lawsuit Seeks to Keep Trump Off Ballots Under 14th Amendment". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 14, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  14. ^ Colorado Supreme Court 2023, p. 1.
  15. ^ Astor, Maggie (October 30, 2023). "Colorado Trial Considers Whether the 14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  16. ^ Astor, Maggie (November 1, 2023). "Trump 14th Amendment Disqualification Trial Can Continue, Judge Rules". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  17. ^ Woodruff, Chase (October 30, 2023). "Trump 14th Amendment trial in Colorado opens with focus on events of Jan. 6". Colorado Newsline. Archived from the original on January 25, 2024. Retrieved January 26, 2024.
  18. ^ Woodruff, Chase (October 31, 2023). "Extremism expert testifies on Trump's 'violent' rhetoric in Colorado 14th Amendment trial". Colorado Newsline. Archived from the original on January 25, 2024. Retrieved January 26, 2024.
  19. ^ Woodruff, Chase (November 1, 2023). "'Insurrection' clause's Civil War-era history scrutinized in third day of Colorado Trump trial". Colorado Newsline. Archived from the original on January 25, 2024. Retrieved January 26, 2024.
  20. ^ Woodruff, Chase (November 1, 2023). "Colorado elections administrator testifies in Trump 14th Amendment trial". Archived from the original on January 25, 2024. Retrieved January 26, 2024.
  21. ^ Colorado Supreme Court 2023, p. 60.
  22. ^ Blake, Aaron (November 20, 2023). "A judge says Trump incited insurrection. Other judges have come close". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 21, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  23. ^ Astor, Maggie (November 17, 2023). "Colorado Judge Keeps Trump on Ballot but Finds He 'Engaged in Insurrection'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 9, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  24. ^ Montellaro, Zach; Orden, Erica; Cheney, Kyle (November 17, 2023). "Colorado judge rules Trump 'engaged in an insurrection' — but can still run for president". Politico. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  25. ^ a b Blumenthal, Paul (January 28, 2024). "Republicans Are Grasping At Straws To Promise Retribution If Trump Is Taken Off The Ballot". HuffPost. Archived from the original on January 28, 2024. Retrieved January 28, 2024.
  26. ^ Riccardi, Nicholas (November 21, 2023). "Colorado Supreme Court will hear appeal of ruling that Trump can stay on ballot despite insurrection". Associated Press. Archived from the original on November 24, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  27. ^ Cameron, Chris (November 21, 2023). "Colorado Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Trump's 14th Amendment Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  28. ^ Colorado Supreme Court 2023, p. 6.
  29. ^ Astor, Maggie (December 19, 2023). "Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  30. ^ Colorado Supreme Court 2023.
  31. ^ Somin, Ilya (December 19, 2023). "Colorado Supreme Court Rules Trump is Ineligible for the Presidency Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment". Volokh Conspiracy. Archived from the original on January 23, 2024. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
  32. ^ Riccardi, Nicholas (December 19, 2023). "Donald Trump banned from Colorado ballot in historic ruling by state's Supreme Court". Associated Press. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 28, 2023.
  33. ^ Karlik, Michael (December 21, 2023). "Dissenting justices in Trump case raise due process concerns, offer slim details". Colorado Politics. Archived from the original on February 2, 2024. Retrieved February 3, 2024.
  34. ^ Vaidyanathan, Vaishnavi (December 20, 2023). "Carlos Samour, Brian Boatright, Maria Berkenkotter: 3 Justices Who Dissented On Trump's Colorado Ruling". Times Now. Archived from the original on February 2, 2024. Retrieved February 3, 2024.
  35. ^ Becket, Stefan; Quinn, Maria (December 20, 2023). "Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case". CBS News. Archived from the original on January 21, 2024. Retrieved February 3, 2024.
  36. ^ "Donald Trump banned from Colorado ballot in historic ruling by state's Supreme Court". Associated Press. December 19, 2023. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 20, 2023.
  37. ^ a b Cohen, Marshall; Cole, Devan (December 27, 2023). "Colorado GOP asks US Supreme Court to overturn ruling disqualifying Trump from 2024 ballot". CNN. Archived from the original on January 2, 2024. Retrieved January 4, 2024.
  38. ^ Reilly, Ryan (December 20, 2023). "Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot". NBC News. Archived from the original on January 27, 2024. Retrieved January 27, 2024.
  39. ^ "FBI investigating threats directed at Colorado supreme court justices after Trump ruling". The Guardian. December 26, 2023. Archived from the original on January 27, 2024. Retrieved January 27, 2024.
  40. ^ Gold, Michael (December 19, 2023). "In a statement, Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, accused the Colorado Supreme Court of effectively "eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice."". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  41. ^ Gold, Michael (December 19, 2023). "The Trump campaign is already fund-raising off the Colorado decision". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  42. ^ Gold, Michael (December 19, 2023). "Trump did not explicitly mention the Colorado Supreme Court decision in his speech in Waterloo, Iowa, which just wrapped up". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  43. ^ Shabad, Rebecca (December 22, 2023). "Trump says he's 'not an insurrectionist' after Colorado high court removes him from ballot". NBC News. Archived from the original on December 22, 2023. Retrieved December 23, 2023.
  44. ^ Gold, Michael (December 19, 2023). "Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running against Trump, called the decision an "attack on democracy" in a statement on social media". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  45. ^ Ulloa, Jazmine (December 19, 2023). "Nikki Haley, campaigning in Agency, Iowa, told reporters that she does not believe Donald J. Trump should be president but that she plans "to beat him fair and square."". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  46. ^ Nehamas, Nicholas (December 19, 2023). "After dodging reporters at his event in Iowa, Ron DeSantis has now responded to the Trump ruling with a post on X." The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  47. ^ Huynh, Anjali (December 19, 2023). "Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey who has run an explicitly anti-Trump campaign, said at a town hall in Bedford, N.H., that he did not believe Trump should be "prevented" from being president by a court". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  48. ^ Gold, Michael (December 19, 2023). "Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas and another Republican presidential candidate, said that the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that Trump supported insurrection would "haunt his candidacy."". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  49. ^ Corasaniti, Nick (December 19, 2023). "Speaker Mike Johnson issued a swift statement on Tuesday night, calling the ruling "a thinly veiled partisan attack" and noting that Trump is the "leader in every poll of the Republican primary."". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  50. ^ Cameron, Chris (December 19, 2023). "Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, said he would introduce legislation that would withhold federal funds for election administration to states "misusing the Fourteenth Amendment for political purposes."". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  51. ^ Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas (December 19, 2023). "Representative Lauren Boebert, the outspoken Republican congresswoman who represents a wide swath of western and southern Colorado, ripped into the court's decision, saying in a statement that the justices had made a political decision that was "designed to suppress the vote and voices of hundreds of thousands of Coloradans."". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  52. ^ Ross, Kendall; Murray, Isabella; Ibssa, Lalee; Kim, Soo Rin (December 20, 2023). "Ramaswamy pledges to withdraw from Colorado GOP primary in solidarity with Trump". ABC News. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 21, 2023.
  53. ^ Fortinsky, Sarah (December 20, 2023). "Colorado GOP threatens to shift to caucus system over Trump ruling". The Hill. Retrieved December 20, 2023.
  54. ^ Samuels, Brett (December 19, 2023). "Biden: 'No question' Trump supported insurrection in light of Colorado ruling". The Hill. Retrieved December 20, 2023.
  55. ^ Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas (December 19, 2023). "Representative Jason Crow, a Democrat whose district includes eastern and southern suburbs of Denver, wrote online that the state's supreme court got the case right". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  56. ^ Garrity, Kelly (December 20, 2023). "Coons: Colorado ruling on Trump is 'a plain reading of the text of the 14th amendment'". Politico. Archived from the original on December 21, 2023. Retrieved December 21, 2023.
  57. ^ Metzger, Bryan. "John Fetterman says it's 'incredibly unhelpful' to boot Trump from ballots via the 14th amendment: 'All it does is just make him more popular and strong'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on January 7, 2024. Retrieved January 8, 2024.
  58. ^ Prose, J.D. (January 5, 2024). "Fetterman says efforts to keep Trump off state ballots are 'incredibly unhelpful'". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on January 8, 2024. Retrieved January 8, 2024.
  59. ^ Mason, Melanie (December 22, 2023). "Newsom pans efforts to block Trump from California ballot". politico. Archived from the original on January 7, 2024. Retrieved January 8, 2024.
  60. ^ Epstein, Reid (December 19, 2023). "The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, who has cracked down on civil liberties and shown authoritarian tendencies, denounced the Colorado ruling". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  61. ^ Montellaro, Zach (December 28, 2023). "US Supreme Court officially asked to take up Trump's 14th Amendment issue". Politico. Archived from the original on December 29, 2023. Retrieved December 29, 2023.
  62. ^ Marley, Patrick; Marrimow, Ann E. (January 3, 2024). "Trump asks Supreme Court to keep his name on Colorado ballot". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 4, 2024. Retrieved January 4, 2024.
  63. ^ Liptak, Adam (January 5, 2024). "Justices to Decide Whether Trump Is Eligible for Colorado Ballot". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 5, 2024. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
  64. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (February 8, 2024). "Supreme Court justices steer clear of insurrection question in Trump ballot case". NBC News. Archived from the original on February 8, 2024. Retrieved February 8, 2024.
  65. ^ a b c d e Liptak, Adam (January 18, 2024). "Trump Asks Supreme Court to Rule He Is Eligible to Hold Office". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 20, 2024. Retrieved January 20, 2024.
  66. ^ ECF No. 34, Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Remand, New York v. Trump, No. 23 Civ. 3773 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2023).
  67. ^ a b c d e Biskupic, Joan; Cole, Devan; Cohen, Marshall (January 26, 2024). "Colorado voters emphasize January 6 violence as they urge Supreme Court to keep Trump off the ballot". CNN. Archived from the original on January 27, 2024. Retrieved January 28, 2024.
  68. ^ McGraw, Meridith (January 5, 2024). "RNC supports Trump in 14th Amendment case at the Supreme Court". Politico. Archived from the original on January 7, 2024. Retrieved January 7, 2024.
  69. ^ Vazquez, Maegan (January 18, 2024). "McConnell, Republican lawmakers sign Supreme Court brief on keeping Trump on ballot". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 18, 2024. Retrieved January 20, 2024.
  70. ^ a b Biskupic, Joan (January 26, 2024). "The conservative legal world lines up behind Donald Trump at the Supreme Court". Erie News Now. Archived from the original on January 27, 2024. Retrieved January 27, 2024.
  71. ^ Pengelly, Martin (January 28, 2024). "US historians sign brief to support Colorado's removal of Trump from ballot". The Guardian. Archived from the original on January 28, 2024. Retrieved January 28, 2024.
  72. ^ O'Donnell, Lawrence (January 31, 2024). "Lawrence: Historians' brief teaches Supreme Court 14th Amendment's real history". MSNBC. Archived from the original on February 4, 2024. Retrieved February 4, 2024.
  73. ^ Cole, Devan (January 29, 2024). "Retired conservative federal judge urges Supreme Court to disqualify Trump from office". CNN. Archived from the original on January 30, 2024. Retrieved January 29, 2024.
  74. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (January 31, 2024). "Colorado secretary of state urges Supreme Court to keep Trump off the ballot". NBC News. Archived from the original on January 31, 2024. Retrieved January 31, 2024.
  75. ^ Fritze, John (February 1, 2024). "Trump's critics hope that Antonin Scalia can sway the Supreme Court in 14th Amendment fight". CNN. Archived from the original on February 2, 2024. Retrieved February 3, 2024.
  76. ^ Liptak, Adam (February 8, 2024). "Colorado Ballot: Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Kick Trump off State Ballots". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 8, 2024. Retrieved February 8, 2024.
  77. ^ Fritze, John; Herb, Jeremy; Cohen, Marshall (February 8, 2024). "Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case". CNN. Archived from the original on February 8, 2024. Retrieved February 8, 2024.
  78. ^ Riccardi, Nicholas. "Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments over whether Trump is ineligible to be president again". Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 9, 2024. Retrieved February 9, 2024.
  79. ^ a b c Liptak, Adam (March 4, 2024). "Supreme Court Rules Trump Stays on Colorado Ballot". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 4, 2024. Retrieved March 4, 2024.
  80. ^ Mangan, Dan (March 4, 2024). "Supreme Court puts Trump back on Colorado Republican primary ballot". CNBC. Archived from the original on March 4, 2024. Retrieved March 4, 2024.
  81. ^ Sherman, Mark (March 4, 2024). "Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack". Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 4, 2024. Retrieved March 4, 2024.

Works cited[edit]

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Anderson&oldid=1220471465"