Donald Trump's One Ruling Away From the Supreme Court

Former President Donald Trump is one ruling away from bringing his 2024 candidacy before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump is appealing the Colorado case that sought to disqualify him from the ballot, even though a lower court already ruled that he should remain on the state's primary ballot.

On Monday, the former president filed an application for review with the Colorado Supreme Court, asking it to reconsider the legal and factual findings made by District Judge Sarah Wallace, which his attorneys argue are "wholly unsupported in the law." Judge Wallace ruled that Trump had "incited" the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, but did not agree with plaintiffs that the law applied to the office of president.

It is the second appeal in the case. The group of Colorado voters who filed the case against Trump have also filed a 67-page appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Constitutional lawyer Kent Greenfield told Newsweek that it's likely that the appeals court will make a decision in a few weeks and that if it rules against Trump, "there is little doubt that the Trump campaign will petition for review at the Supreme Court."

"If that happens, it is highly likely that the Court will hear the case, and on an expedited schedule," Greenfield said. "This could be the most important political case the Court has heard since Bush v. Gore."

Greenfield said that if the appeals court does rule in Trump's favor, the Supreme Court which is trying to "avoid it if they can," will be unlikely to hear a petition from the former president.

"It was just a matter of time before the Supreme Court had to address this issue," former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers Neama Rahmani told Newsweek. "It's an unsettled matter of important constitutional significance, and now we have inconsistent rulings across the country."

Trump's appeal comes days after a Colorado judge rejected a 14th Amendment challenge to remove him from the state's primary ballot. Section 3 of the amendment states that no person shall hold any office, civil or military, if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S.

The appeal from Trump's attorneys takes issue with Wallace's ruling, which found that the January 6 Capitol riot was an "insurrection," that Trump's political speech "incited violence" and that his speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

Wallace, however, allowed Trump to remain on the ballot because while her findings would normally be enough to disqualify someone running for office, it only pertains to "officers of the United States," which she ruled does not include presidential and vice presidential candidates.

"I—like most legal scholars—think the notion that the President is not covered by Section 3 is ludicrous," Greenfield said. "Why would the Framers of the 14th Amendment provide for the disqualification of treasonous members of Congress, but not require the disqualification of an insurrectionist occupying the nation's most powerful office?"

Greenfield called the Colorado case "the most serious of the cases winding its way through various state courts challenging Trump's eligibility."

Wallace's Friday ruling is the third in a little over a week to have rejected lawsuits seeking to disqualify Trump based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court has already allowed Trump to remain on the primary ballot, finding that who appears on the ballot is solely decided by political parties, and in Michigan, a judge ruled that Congress should be left to interpret whether Section 3 applies to Trump.

"Some judges have dismissed lawsuits on standing grounds, while others have said it's a political issue to be decided by Congress, or that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to primary races. And in Colorado, surprisingly the judge ruled that a President is not an officer of the United States," Rahmani said.

He said, "The rulings are all over the place, so the Justices have to define the standard to review these 14th Amendment challenges, if it's even something lower courts can address."

Update 11/21/23 11:03 a.m. ET: This story was updated with comments from Rahmani.