Rule of Law

RELEASE: Colorado Supreme Court Decision Represents a Win for Colorado Voters, Democracy, and Constitutional Accountability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Colorado Supreme Court in Anderson v. Griswold, a case in which the Court considered whether Donald Trump should be allowed to appear as a candidate on the Colorado Republican Party presidential primary ballot due to his disqualification from office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President Praveen Fernandes issued the following reaction:

Today’s decision by the Colorado Supreme Court affirms the district court’s careful findings that January 6th represented an insurrection and that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, and it reverses the district court by holding—as the Constitutional Accountability Center urged in our amicus brief– that the Disqualification Clause applies to presidents and to the presidency.

Guided by the Constitution’s text and history, the Colorado Supreme Court held that because Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, he is constitutionally disqualified from serving as president and therefore should not be listed on the presidential primary ballot in Colorado.

Donald Trump might have violated the oath of office he took, but the Colorado Supreme Court Justices honored theirs. The Court did not shirk its “solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

Today’s decision, driven by the facts and the law, represents a win for Colorado voters, democracy, and constitutional accountability.

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
July 2, 2024

RADIO/PODCAST (Bloomberg): Elizabeth Wydra Discusses Presidential Immunity Ruling

Bloomberg
Elizabeth Wydra, Constitutional Accountability Center President & Supreme Court Litigator, discusses the latest developments in...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Joe Mathieu, Kailey Leinz
Rule of Law
July 2, 2024

‘Originalism is a dead letter’: Supreme Court majority accused of abandoning legal principles in Trump immunity ruling

NBC News
Critics on the left and the right said the decision finding absolute immunity for certain...
By: Smita Ghosh, Lawrence Hurley
Rule of Law
 

Garland v. VanDerStok

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Supreme Court is considering whether weapon parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers should be regulated as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act.
Rule of Law
July 1, 2024

RELEASE: High Court’s Decision on Presidential Immunity Is Too Little and Too Late to Ensure the Framers’ Vision of Presidential Accountability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States,...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Smita Ghosh
Rule of Law
July 30, 2024

She cemented a conservative Supreme Court, but a ‘cautious’ Justice Barrett sometimes resists the far-right flank

NBC News
In several recent cases, the Trump appointee has written opinions criticizing conservative colleagues and has...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Lawrence Hurley
Rule of Law
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: In Flagrant Judicial Power Grab, Court Discards Chevron Doctrine, Undermining Congress and Agencies, and Threatening Government Programs that Protect Americans

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen