Colorado court used Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's ruling to justify disqualifying Trump
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
- Trump is disqualified from the ballot in Colorado, the state's Supreme Court ruled.
- But the case is sure to go to the Supreme Court.
- Colorado's court cited Justice Neil Gorsuch in their decision.
Colorado's top court appears to be already looking for sympathetic ears on the US Supreme Court to uphold its decision that would boot former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot in the state.
Tucked into the Colorado state court's 4-3 ruling is a reference to Justice Neil Gorsuch, specifically a ruling Gorsuch issued as a then circuit court of appeals judge in a 2012 case concerning a long-shot presidential candidate's citizenship status.
The Colorado Supreme Court cited Gorsuch's ruling as cover for its unprecedented decision to kick Trump off a primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
"As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,'" the state opinion reads.
The Colorado judges almost assuredly knew that Trump would appeal their decision to the US Supreme Court, making their decision to reference Gorsuch's previous ruling all the more important. Shortly after the Colorado decision was announced, Trump's campaign made clear it would appeal the decision to the nation's highest court. The Colorado decision does not go into effect until January, allowing time for the appeals process to sort itself out.
The state court largely upheld a lower court's decision that Trump cannot qualify for the ballot because he incited the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. In the Colorado judges' view, Trump's actions amounted to an insurrection that would violate the post-Civil War amendment barring former officials from holding future office if they "engaged in insurrection."
In 2012, Gorsuch dealt with a far less weighty case. It is worth pointing out that his decision is not even three pages long.
Still, the appeals court was asked to consider whether then-Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler had acted properly when his office decided that Abdul Hassan, an independent candidate for president, could not be on the state's ballot because Hassan was ineligible to be president. Hassan, who was born in Guyana, was a naturalized citizen but in Colorado's view, he was not a natural-born citizen. While the Supreme Court has never definitely ruled on the phrase, it has been taken to mean that a candidate must be born on US soil or born to a parent who is an American citizen.
Gorusch found Colorado was well within its rights. Interestingly, there is one more tie to the 2012 case. Gessler is now one of Trump's lawyers.