BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off ballot

In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado, the decision will end similar cases that have arisen. So far, only two other states, Maine and Illinois, have followed Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions were put on hold.

In a statement, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold acknowledged that the court ruled “that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. In accordance with this decision, Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado's 2024 Presidential Primary.”

The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election results, including his exhortation that his supporters should march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to formalize Joe Biden's win.

Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on his broad claim of presidential immunity.

The ruling warned of the dangers of a patchwork of decisions around the country that could send elections into chaos if state officials had the freedom to determine who could appear on the ballot for president.

"The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct," the ruling said.

Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how Section 3 could be enforced by Congress.

They said the decision could "insulate" Trump from "future controversy," adding that the ruling "shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement" of section 3.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court went further than required, although she did not join the liberal justices' opinion.

Barrett said although she had some disagreements with the rationale, the liberals should not “amplify disagreement” in such a politically charged case.

“All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," she added.

The Colorado court based its Dec. 19 ruling on Section 3, which was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to power in the U.S. government.

The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.

The state high court's decision reversed a lower court's ruling in which a judge said that Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are not an “officer of the United States.”

Trump and his allies raised that point, as well as other arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.

Republicans, including Trump's primary opponents, broadly supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a partisan weapon.

The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.

They alleged in court papers that Trump “intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.”

Colorado is one of more than a dozen states that has its primary election Tuesday.

!chuds !accelerationists !dramatards