An Amherst attorney who has made the case that former President Donald Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021 constituted an insurrection against the United States called Tuesday’s ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court as a “victory for our democracy and our constitution.”

The divided Colorado court declared Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, a ruling that will almost certainly be challenged by the nation’s highest court.

John Bonifaz, an activist attorney in Amherst and president of the nonprofit organization Free Speech for People, has long maintained that Section Three of the 14th Amendment applies to Trump. His organization filed an amicus brief in the Colorado Supreme Court case supporting the argument that Trump violated the 14th Amendment, and has worked closely with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the nonprofit that filed the case in Colorado.

In another 14th Amendment case brought forth by Free Speech for People, a Michigan judge ruled that Congress, not the judiciary, should decide whether Trump can stay on the ballot. That ruling is being appealed. Free Speech For People also filed another lawsuit in Oregon seeking to bounce Trump from the ballot there.

“We are already applying this ruling in our pending cases before the Michigan Supreme Court and the Oregon Supreme Court challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility under Section Three of the 14th Amendment,” Bonifaz said in an interview. “We intend to apply it in future challenges in other states which we will bring Donald Trump’s eligibility to.”

The Colorado Supreme Court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case. Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the court’s majority. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our 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.”

Paul Collins, a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said the ruling made by the Colorado judges relies on what is known as “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, or arguments based on how the laws were originally understood to be at the time of their adoption. Collins said the use of originalist thought is likely a deliberate attempt to approach the case in the same way the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court is likely to determine the ruling.

“Not every judge is an originalist, but I think the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court made a conscious decision to rate it this way, knowing that it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Collins said.

Collins added that the case essentially boils down to two questions: First, did Trump engage in an insurrection, and second, does the 14th Amendment apply to the president? Collins said the latter question will likely be the focus of a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.

“Generally speaking, appellate courts don’t review factual questions in great detail,” he said. “I’m not even sure that the U.S. Supreme Court will discuss whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection.”

Trump’s response

Trump’s attorneys promised to appeal any disqualification immediately to the nation’s highest court, which has the final say about constitutional matters.

Trump’s legal spokeswoman, Alina Habba, said in a statement Tuesday night: “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”

Trump didn’t mention the decision during a rally Tuesday evening in Waterloo, Iowa, but his campaign sent out a fundraising email citing what it called a “tyrannical ruling.”

Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel labeled the decision “election interference” and said the RNC’s legal team intends to help Trump fight the ruling.

Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and doesn’t need the state to win next year’s presidential election. But the danger for the former president is that more courts and election officials will follow Colorado’s lead and exclude Trump from must-win states.

Another looming state supreme court case to rule on Trump’s eligibility will be in Maine, which could come to a decision as soon as Friday. Bonifaz said the Colorado ruling sets an important precedent on how other state courts, as well as their respective secretary of states, move forward in determining the former president’s eligibility.

“Every chief election official now ought to look at this ruling and recognize they have a duty to follow this mandate,” Bonifaz said.

He also said that he was exploring bringing a similar challenge before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, but declined to comment further on the matter.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Trump under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War. It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War. The Colorado case is the first where the plaintiffs succeeded.

Material from the Associated Press was used in this report. Alexander MacDougall can be reached at amacdougall@gazettenet.com.