(NewsNation) — Colorado’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled former President Donald Trump is disqualified from appearing on the state’s 2024 primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
Michael Gerhardt, a distinguished professor at UNC School of Law and one of the leading constitutional scholars in the country, believes it’s “likely” that the United States Supreme Court will take up the case.
“This is a big deal and there are real consequences here,” Gerhardt said Tuesday on “CUOMO.” “The consequences here are different than if Trump had been allowed on the ballot, but saying categorically you can’t even get on the ballot may be the kind of harm that will catch the Supreme Court’s attention and identify a problem the Supreme Court will try to decide.”
The Colorado high court put its ruling on hold until Jan. 4, so Trump can first seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump’s spokesperson quickly vowed to do so, meaning Trump’s name automatically remains on the ballot until the justices in Washington resolve the appeal.
In a major legal blow to Trump, the Colorado court affirmed he engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud and directing them to the Capitol — preventing him from a second White House term under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.”
Attorney Mercedes Colwin described it as “groundbreaking” ruling and case.
Up until this point, election laws had not been looked at, at least under these circumstances, to have (the 14th Amendment) apply against a presidential candidate,” Colwin said on “Elizabeth Vargas Reports.”
Colwin said it’s possible the U.S. Supreme Court might look at the case once it’s appealed and determine it doesn’t have the jurisdiction to resolve the matter, but views that as unlikely. The high court in October declined to take up another case also challenging Trump’s eligibility on 14th Amendment grounds, though it gave no reason for doing so.
“This is such a critically important case, especially when you’re talking bout other jurisdictions that can follow suit,” Colwin said.
The state justices determined that the office of the president is covered under the insurrection clause, which specifically lists those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as “a member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State.” The district court had ruled that the office of the president was not covered under the clause.
Gerhardt believes it’s a straightforward matter.
“I think … what that language clearly is meant to convey is that the president is an officer of the United States and would be one of the people that would be effectively ineligible to serve in another capacity such as president,” he said.
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, blamed the decision on the “all-Democrat appointed” court, swearing to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The unprecedented decision all but ensures a dramatic legal battle at the high court ahead of the 2024 election, in which Trump is the undisputed Republican front-runner.
“I think one of the critical questions the court would identify is whether or not the court itself should be that institution deciding this matter, or perhaps Congress should decide it or we’ll leave it to the states,” Gerhardt said. “But the court’s not going to want to take the responsibility for a final judgment here because it’s going to get slammed either way.”
The Hill contributed to this report.