Judge Rejects Trump’s Effort to Halt 14th Amendment Trial, Plans Ruling By Thanksgiving


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

A Colorado judge on Wednesday once again rejected former President Donald Trump’s motion to halt voters’ efforts to bar him from appearing on the 2024 ballot using a provision of an amendment ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Denver District Court Judge Sarah Wallace told Trump’s lawyers on day three of the trial she wanted to let the proceedings continue to hear more evidence, including how Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021, which proceeded a riot at the U.S. Capitol Building, was protected under the First Amendment, CNN reported. Voters who brought the lawsuit argue the then-president’s rhetoric was a “call to violence,” though Trump specifically said during his speech supporters should “peacefully” protest at the Capitol ahead of Congress’ vote to certify the 2020 election for Joe Biden.

CNN added:

With that, Trump began his defense case, featuring testimony from former Pentagon official Kash Patel and former Trump campaign adviser Katrina Pierson, who helped organize the January 6 rally.

It all played out one day before a separate challenge will be heard in Minnesota, where another advocacy group filed a similar lawsuit hoping to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot. Oral arguments are scheduled for Thursday at the Minnesota Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s spot on the state’s ballot.


The voters are trying to keep Trump off the ballot under a provision of the 14th Amendment, which says that persons are disqualified from holding elected office if the “engaged in insurrection.” However, the provision does not prescribe how to enforce such a ban and it has only been used twice since 1919, leading many experts to argue that the effort to bar Trump is a legal longshot.

CNN said she plans on deciding the case by Thanksgiving.

Some takeaways from the trial in Colorado thus far include, per CNN:

— “The challengers are six GOP and independent voters, whose lawsuit has the backing of a DC-based watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They wrapped up their case Wednesday with testimony from one of the leading scholars on the 14th Amendment, who said the insurrection ban applies ‘broadly’ and covers ‘words of incitement.’”

— The expert, Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca, who has studied the amendment for years before the 2020 election, to include the debate over its language in Congress as well as Justice Dept. memos regarding how it was applied during the Reconstruction Era and applicable court cases, testified that he believes Trump is disqualified. He told the court he thinks the 14th Amendment was meant to be applied broadly, including against presidents, and that state courts have enforced it before.

— Trump’s witnesses, meanwhile, refuted arguments that he hoped his supporters would become violent and that he was derelict in his presidential duties. He also told the court that senior Pentagon leaders thought on Jan. 6 that the then-president “had authorized the National Guard troops we needed” during a meeting a few days before the incident.

— Later, Pierson, who worked between the Trump White House and groups that planned and held the Elllipse rally on Jan. 6, testified that she attempted to keep “fringe” members in the president’s orbit away from the official event.

“She said she worked to exclude right-wing conspiracy theorists Alex Jones and Ali Alexander, who were ‘known for being over-the-top in their rhetoric, whether it be conspiracy or outright chaos.’ A deal was struck for them to headline a rally on January 5 instead, while Trump would speak on January 6,” CNN added.


— Before proceedings began, Trump lawyer Scott Gessler asked Wallace for a “directed verdict” declaring that plaintiffs had not proven their case and, therefore, Trump should not be removed from the ballot. She rejected that, however.

— Gensler also argued that there is no evidence “that shows that President Trump in any manner, in any way, incited an insurrection, incited violence, incited a riot” under a Supreme Court precedent that denotes speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it leads to imminent lawless action.


Share :

post a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *