Supreme Court unanimously rules to keep Trump on Colorado ballot

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former President Donald Trump could not be removed from the ballot in Colorado or any other state. It was a sweeping and historic ruling that brushed aside a lawsuit claiming that he disqualified himself from office because of his actions on January 6, 2021.

In a repudiation of the notion that Trump’s actions left him ineligible under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” a unanimous court ruled that an individual state could not dump the former president from the ballot.

However, the justices did not say if Trump was an insurrectionist and split on technicalities of how the ban could be enforced. A 5-4 majority said no state could dump a federal candidate off any ballot — but four justices asserted that the court should have limited its opinion.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the ruling:

Get up to speed and read the full takeaways from the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Monday reacted to the Supreme Court’s ruling that states can’t bar Donald Trump from running for office based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban, saying in part, “We don’t ever want some elected official in the state, or anybody else saying who can and can’t be on the ballot.”

“Look I’ll defeat Donald Trump fair and square, but I want him on that ballot,” she added, during a campaign stop in Houston, Texas. She continues in the race for the GOP nomination, despite trailing the former president by a wide margin. 

The former South Carolina governor continued to criticize Trump’s leadership, placing blame on him for the shift in the structure of the Republican party and arguing that Trump is trying to make the Republican National Committee his own personal “legal slush fund,” after his recent leadership endorsements to replace current chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

The Supreme Court’s decision to bar states from knocking Donald Trump off the ballot generated considerable confusion about where each of the justices stood on the fraught question of the former president’s eligibility for a second term.

To begin with, the court handed down what’s known as a “per curiam” opinion, a Latin term that translates to “by the court.” Such opinions are relatively rare and are sometimes used to signal consensus — even though such opinions are not always unanimous.

Per curium opinions are “unsigned,” which means that unlike most opinions, the public doesn’t know who wrote them and can’t always glean the vote count. 

Per curiam opinions have faced criticism from some quarters for that very reason: They allow the court to resolve controversial issues without explicitly making clear their authorship. Among the most notable per curiam opinions in the court’s history was the Bush v. Gore decision, which effectively settled the election 2000 election for President George W. Bush.

Adding further confusion to Monday’s decision were the “concurring” opinions that at times looked likely sharply worded dissents. The court unanimously sided with Trump and against Colorado for the prospect that an individual state can’t knock a presidential candidate off the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.” Despite the unity, there was considerable disagreement about some of the court’s reasoning.

What that meant is that while Trump won unanimously, the court split apart on some of the reasoning in a way that looked much closer to a 5-4 vote.  

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said today’s ruling from the Supreme Court “gives needed clarity to state officials and courts still wrestling with the question of how to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Donald Trump’s eligibility as a candidate.”

She continued in a statement: “I hope it also gives voters greater clarity of their power to define the future of our nation and our democracy. Because as Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson remind us in their concurrence, ‘The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing.’”

Last year, Michigan’s Supreme Court rejected an attempt to remove former president Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the insurrectionist clause of the US Constitution.

Remember: The 14th Amendment says Americans who take an oath to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection” are disqualified from holding future public office.

The amendment’s key provision, Section 3, says in part: “No person shall … hold any office … under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

However, the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce the ban. And there is an open legal debate over how some of the terms in the vague provision should be defined.

CNN’s Marshall Cohen contributed reporting to this post.

Maine’s top election official formally restored Donald Trump’s spot on the state’s 2024 ballot after the Supreme Court ruled that states can’t bar him from office based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, ruled in December that Trump was disqualified from the state’s ballots, but her decision was paused while the US Supreme Court reviewed a similar case from Colorado. 

Noting Monday’s ruling, Bellows wrote: “Consistent with my oath and obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and pursuant to the Anderson decision, I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid.” 

Maine’s primary is Tuesday. 

Former President Donald Trump is speaking from his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, after the Supreme Court’s ruling to keep him on the Colorado ballot.

He lauded the SCOTUS decision as an “important decision” that was “very well-crafted.”

“I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs,” he said Monday, while noting that he believes the decision “will be a unifying factor.”

“They worked long, they worked hard and frankly, they worked very quickly on something that will be spoken about 100 years from now and 200 years from now, extremely important. Essentially, you cannot take somebody out of a race because an opponent would like to have it that way,” he added.

His campaign is already fundraising off of the decision. Less than an hour after the court handed down its ruling, the Trump campaign blasted out a fundraising text to supporters alerting them of the decision and donate to his cause.

The decision, which marked the first time the high court had weighed Trump’s actions on January 6, landed a day before Super Tuesday, when 16 states and territories, including Colorado, will hold nominating contests.

CNN’s Veronica Stracqualursi contributed reporting to this post.

Several likely front-runners to replace Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as Republican leader applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to allow former President Donald Trump on the ballot ahead of Colorado’s primary.

“This decision by SCOTUS puts an end to Democrats’ efforts to suppress the will of the people, and that’s a win for democracy,” GOP Sen. John Cornyn said in a post on X. “Voters all across our country will decide the outcome of this year’s elections, not far-left judges in a small number of liberal states.”

Cornyn spoke to the former president on Wednesday, one day before he announced his bid for the top job, about his intention to run for leader.

Senate Republican Conference chair John Barrasso also posted on social media about his support for the Court’s decision.

“Today’s decision means that liberal activists will not silence American voters this November,” he wrote. “Millions of voters will rightly decide our next president at the ballot box.”

Another possible candidate for leader, the Senate Republican’s campaign Chair Steve Daines, chimed in as well, calling it, “The right decision.” 

Top officials from the liberal watchdog group that brought the Donald Trump ballot challenge in Colorado said they disagreed with the Supreme Court decision overturning their victory in that state, but argued they lost on legal technicalities and that the high court didn’t dispute the former president’s role inciting the January 6 insurrection. 

“There is not a single sentence from a single justice taking substantive issue with the finding from the Colorado Supreme Court that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said during a call with reporters. 

Jason Murray, who argued on behalf of the challengers before the US Supreme Court, said the high court “had the opportunity to say that there was some defect in the evidence we presented, and it did not do so.” He was referring to the weeklong trial in Colorado that saw testimony from police officers, experts on right-wing extremism, and lawmakers about Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

“The issue of Trump’s eligibility for the presidency remains very much a live issue,” but the ball is now in Congress’ court, Murray added. 

A five-member conservative majority concluded that Congress would need to pass an enforcement mechanism before states could take action to bar Trump from the ballot. 

Norma Anderson, the 91-year-old lead plaintiff in the lawsuit aiming to remove Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot, urged fellow Republicans to “recognize the threat” the former president poses to democracy, given the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in his favor Monday. 

“Today’s decision does not change this fact: Donald Trump engaged in insurrection against the United States Constitution,” Anderson, who is a former Colorado House and Senate Majority leader, said in a statement to CNN.

“I served in public office for decades as a Republican, never putting my party or personal interests ahead of my duties to Colorado or our country,” she said in the statement.

“In light of today’s ruling, I urge my fellow Republicans to recognize the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy and do the same. My fellow plaintiffs and I are proud to have brought this case, and look forward to continuing the work of protecting our democracy.”

Donald Trump is juggling a busy court and campaign schedule as he defends himself in several criminal cases while also vying for a another term in the White House.

The former president’s first criminal trial will take place later this month in a courtroom in New York, where he faces charges stemming from his alleged falsification of business records with the intent to conceal illegal conduct connected to his 2016 presidential campaign.

The trial start date in Trump’s classified documents case in Florida had been set for late May, but the judge overseeing that case revisited the timing of the trial during a key hearing on March 1. She has not yet set a new date for the trial.

House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the Supreme Court unanimous ruling that former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado, saying the decision “affirmed what we all knew.” 

Johnson accused the Colorado Supreme Court of engaging in a “purely partisan attack” against former President Donald Trump and warned other states to “take notice.” 

“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed what we all knew: the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in a purely partisan attack against the frontrunner for the Republican presidential primary,” Johnson posted on X.

“States engaging in the same activist, undemocratic behaviors should take notice and leave it to the American people to decide who will be president,” he said.

Monday’s Supreme Court opinion doesn’t directly address whether former President Donald Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, qualified him as an “insurrectionist” – skirting an issue that the courts in Colorado had wrestled with.

The unsigned opinion noted that lower courts in Colorado found Trump’s remarks before the attack on the US Capitol qualified as engaging in an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution. But the US Supreme Court’s opinion didn’t return to that judgment.

That tracks with what experts predicted would happen: that the justices would seek to decide the Trump ballot case in a narrow way without delving into Trump’s actions.

Using the 14th Amendment to derail Donald Trump’s candidacy has always been seen as a legal longshot, but gained significant momentum with a win in Colorado’s top court in December, on its way to the US Supreme Court. Since that decision, Trump was also removed from the ballot in Maine and Illinois.

Courts and legal groups had for months debated the meaning of the post-Civil War provision at the center of the case, language that prohibits certain officials who took an oath to support the Constitution – and then engaged in insurrection – from serving in office again. The key provision, known as Section 3, was originally intended to keep former Confederates from reclaiming power.

But there was considerable uncertainty about the ban’s meaning and how it should be applied. Several conservative and liberal justices raised fundamental questions during the February 8 arguments about the fairness of Colorado effectively answering those questions for the rest of the nation.

Similar 14th Amendment challenges against Trump were rejected – all on procedural grounds – in Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts and Oregon. But in Colorado, a series of decisions by state courts led to a case that Trump ultimately appealed to the US Supreme Court in January.

Read more about the major 14th Amendment efforts across the country.

A five-member majority from the court said in Monday’s ruling that Congress would need to pass an enforcement mechanism before states could remove federal candidates from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.” Four members of the court – the three liberals, plus Justice Amy Coney Barrett – disagreed. 

The all-conservative majority said this about their colleagues: “they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it.” 

The 14th Amendment’s key provision, Section 3, says in part:

“No person shall … hold any office … under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

That five-member majority said the US Constitution gave Congress the power to decide how those determinations should be made. “The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass ‘appropriate legislation’ to ‘enforce’ the Fourteenth Amendment.” 

Some more context: This finding from the majority revolves around whether the insurrectionist ban is “self-executing,” which would mean that its ratification in 1868 is enough for election officials or courts to enforce it against Trump or any other candidate. Historically, that is what happened to thousands of Confederates during Reconstruction, according to testimony at the Colorado disqualification trial from a leading constitutional scholar.  

Trump argued that the Colorado courts got it wrong when they concluded that Congress doesn’t need to pass a resolution disqualifying him from office for the ban to be enforced against him. One of the dissenting Colorado justices embraced Trump’s theory that the provision isn’t self-executing, citing a ruling from the 1869 “Griffin’s Case,” which Trump heavily leaned on in his Supreme Court appeal.  

CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck says there are two key ways that the five conservative justices who voted to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot went further than the other four were willing to go.

“First, the unsigned majority opinion holds that states can’t enforce Section 3 against any​ prospective federal officeholders, and not just against presidential candidates,” Vladek, who is also a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said.

“Second, it also requires Congress to pass affirmative legislation to enforce Section 3—cutting off other ways that the federal government might enforce that provision” he said.

“For example, by refusing to count electoral votes in favor of a candidate who violates Section 3,” he added. “Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson didn’t say they would’ve answered those questions differently; they just wouldn’t have answered them at all.”

A reminder: Section 3 was the key provision at the center of the case. It was originally intended to keep former Confederates from reclaiming power.

Courts and legal groups had for months debated the meaning of the section as it has language that prohibits certain officials who took an oath to support the Constitution – and then engaged in insurrection – from serving in office again.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she was “disappointed” by the US Supreme Court’s decision “stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

Posting to social media after the ruling to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot was handed down, Griswold wrote: “Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.”

Former President Donald Trump welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling to keep him on the Colorado ballot, issuing a brief statement on social media.

“BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!” the former president wrote.

Trump is expected to give remarks shortly at Mar-a-Lago in response to the decision, a source familiar tells CNN.

His campaign is already fundraising off of the decision. Less than an hour after the court handed down its ruling, the Trump campaign blasted out a fundraising text to supporters alerting them of the decision and criticizing “the unhinged Democrat plan to erase my name.”

“Democrats are still pushing endless witch hunts against me. They still want to fine me, arrest me, and stop me from running,” the appeal claimed, while asking the former president’s supporters to donate to his cause. “Super Tuesday is tomorrow! Before the day is over, I’m calling on every single patriot reading this message to chip in.”

While the Supreme Court unanimously agreed to overturn the Colorado ruling, a narrower 5-4 majority ruled that states don’t have the power to enforce the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban against any federal candidates.  

A five-justice majority – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – wrote that states may not remove any federal officer from the ballot, especially the president, without Congress first passing legislation.    

“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” they said. “Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.” 

But four justices said that swept too far and settled too much. With its opinion, the majority, “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. “We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily.”  

Amy Coney Barrett, writing alone, said that the case “does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” 

The White House and the Biden campaign have declined to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling allowing Donald Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado. It tracks with their typical strategy of not commenting on the legal cases involving the former president.

Earlier this year, President Joe Biden said he’s “fine” with his predecessor remaining on the ballot, and he’s argued it’s a matter for the courts to decide. 

The president has repeatedly cast Trump as a direct threat to democracy, including sharp criticism of his role on January 6. But Biden and his team have mostly refrained from engaging with the legal cases against Trump in their arguments in order to avoid any appearance of political interference. 

The Supreme Court’s Monday ruling that Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado is a massive victory for the former president, vanquishing one of the many legal threats that have both plagued and animated his campaign against President Joe Biden.

Using the 14th Amendment to derail Trump’s candidacy has always been seen as a legal longshot, but gained significant momentum with a win in Colorado’s top court in December, on its way to the US Supreme Court. Since that decision, Trump was also removed from the ballot in Maine and Illinois.

Trump has ridiculed the 14th Amendment lawsuits that have cropped and routinely has complained that they are an unconstitutional affront pursued by Democrats who want to take him off the ballot rather than compete with him in November. His lawyers have argued it would be “un-American” to deprive voters of the opportunity to decide whether Trump should return to the White House.

Why the decision matters: Today’s decision marked the first time the high court had weighed Trump’s actions on January 6, and it landed a day before Super Tuesday, when 16 states and territories, including Colorado, will hold nominating contests.

During the Supreme Court’s arguments in the case, it appeared that Trump would win. It wasn’t only conservatives who appeared to be on the attack: Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also zeroed in on some of the arguments that Trump had raised in his briefs.

The Supreme Court was united on the idea that Donald Trump will remain on the ballot in Colorado and that the state cannot unilaterally dump him off the ballot, in their opinion issued Monday.

But the justices were divided about how broadly the decision would sweep. A 5-4 majority said that no state could dump a federal candidate off any ballot – with four justices asserted that the court should have limited its opinion.   

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the blockbuster challenge to former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that he  should appear.

CNN is reviewing the decision now.

Read the decision:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado, a decision with nationwide implications that could put to rest, for now, the debate over whether the 14th Amendment bars him from office because of his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. 

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the blockbuster challenge to former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot.

CNN is reviewing the decision now.

At issue is a provision in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution that bars certain public officials from serving in the government again if they took part in an insurrection. The voters who challenged Trump in Colorado say his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol makes him ineligible under that “insurrection ban.”

More about the case: The case is the most significant election matter the justices have been forced to confront since the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against Trump, it would almost certainly end his campaign for another term.

During oral arguments in early February, the Supreme Court signaled it was poised to back Trump and fend off the challenge.

The Supreme Court signaled in early February that it was poised to back former President Donald Trump and fend off a blockbuster challenge to his eligibility to appear on Colorado’s ballot.

During about two hours of arguments, the high court’s conservative justices peppered the lawyers representing Trump’s challengers with a series of questions that suggested they were seeking a way to side with the former president – most likely based on reasoning that doesn’t address the question of whether he is or isn’t an insurrectionist.

Even some members of the court’s liberal wing posed difficult questions to the lawyers opposed to the former president.

Here are key takeaways from the oral arguments:

Conservatives suggest several ways to side with Trump: Throughout the course of the arguments, the court’s conservatives repeatedly questioned whether the insurrection ban was intended to apply to former presidents and whether the ban could be enforced without Congress first enacting a law. Others delved into more fundamental questions about whether courts removing a candidate from the ballot is democratic. “Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in one of the more striking exchanges with attorneys. If Trump is removed from the ballot in Colorado, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted that states would eventually attempt to knock other candidates off the ballot. That, he signaled, would be inconsistent with the purpose and history of the 14th Amendment.

Jackson and liberals have tough questions for challengers: Another sign that the court was leaning toward Trump’s position: Even some of the liberal justices posed difficult questions to the lawyers representing his challengers. Notably, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden nominee, said that the 14th Amendment provision did not include the word “president,” even though it specifically listed other officials who would be covered, such as members of Congress. That is a central argument Trump’s attorneys have raised in the case. “I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focused on the president,” Jackson said. Justice Elena Kagan questioned the implications of a single state banning a candidate in a presidential election.

Justices didn’t focus on Trump’s January 6 actions: The nine justices spent little time on the former president’s actions surrounding the January 6 attack on the US Capitol that sparked the ballot challenge in Colorado and elsewhere. There were more questions, in fact, about the Civil War and how the insurrectionist ban in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was enacted in order to grapple with confederates who fought against the Union.

Norma Anderson, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from office, is a lifelong Republican who has had a storied political career, including stints as the first-ever woman majority leader in both chambers of the Colorado legislature.

“I’m an old-fashioned Republican that believes in strong defense, supporting business, and helping those who don’t know how to help themselves, and less government, and a fair tax base,” Anderson said.

Here are some highlights of her career:

Battling Trump – especially in court – comes with acclaim in some circles, and vitriol in others. Anderson said she has received a lot of support from friends and family, except for one or two holdouts who are still die-hard Trump supporters. She said most of her friends weren’t surprised that she got involved in the case.

“I was born four months before FDR was elected,” Anderson said. “I’ve lived through a lot of presidents. Some I liked, some I didn’t. But not one of them caused an insurrection, until Donald Trump.”

Learn more about Anderson’s life, work and stances here.

There is a dizzying array of court cases related to former President Donald Trump. Only one was reviewed by the US Supreme Court recently. It is a Colorado case in which Trump was declared ineligible for the state’s 2024 ballot for violating the Civil War-era insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

When we asked CNN readers for their questions about the Supreme Court case, it quickly became clear in the hundreds of responses that a lot of people are struggling to keep all of Trump’s legal issues separate.

For instance, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the 14th Amendment case the same week that an appeals court in Washington, DC, clarified that, no, Trump does not enjoy “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

In answering readers’ questions, we’ve tried to delineate between the multiple cases involving Trump. We’ve also edited the wording in some questions for grammar and style.

Read our answers’ to readers’ questions.