Legal Analyst Breaks Down Colorado Judge’s Ruling In Trump 14th Amendment Case


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

A prominent legal expert has dissected the decision of a state judge in Colorado regarding an attempt to have former President Donald Trump removed from the ballot for 2024 by referring to the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment.

After reading the decision, Fox News analyst Sol Wisenberg found only one “significant” aspect: the judge “held back.” Wisenberg also argued that the Colorado case, pending the outcome at the state Supreme Court, could impact the 2024 presidential election.

District Judge Sarah B. Wallace stated in her decision that she thinks the ex-president was involved in an insurrection, but that the 14th Amendment does not specifically mention the presidency among the numerous positions that an individual cannot attain if they are guilty of insurrection.

“Part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three,” the judge wrote.

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States’ did not include the President of the United States,” she said. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”


In an appearance on “The Ingraham Angle,” Wisenberg and host Laura Ingraham discussed the myriad of court cases against Trump, eventually focusing on Wallace’s ruling.

“And Sol, then in that Colorado case, the judge there … a separate case, obviously on 14th amendment grounds in Colorado. The judge there ruled that Trump — they made a factual finding saying that Trump is responsible for inciting an insurrection, but he can remain on the ballot,” Ingraham said.

“Well, the left went crazy with that all day long, saying that was, you know, fantastic because it sets a factual predicate in Colorado. Is that significant today?” she asked.

Wisenberg acknowledged what many in the media said but didn’t find it “significant.”

“I don’t think it’s significant,” Wisenberg responded. “The significant thing in that opinion was that she held back. She realizes the historical record is very mixed on this, so she exercised judicial restraint — you can tell it killed her. But what some judge in Colorado thinks about insurrection, I don’t think is going to have any effect on any of the federal cases here.”

It should be noted that Trump’s legal team attempted to have Wallace removed from the case because before she was a judge, she apparently donated money to ‘anti-insurrection’ organizations.

The former president’s team celebrated another victory in an email to supporters.

“We applaud today’s ruling in Colorado, which is another nail in the coffin of the un-American ballot challenges. With this decision, Democrats’ 14th Amendment challenges have now been defeated in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said.

“These cases represent the most cynical and blatant political attempts to interfere with the upcoming presidential election by desperate Democrats who know Crooked Joe Biden is a failed president on the fast track to defeat,” he added. “The American voter has a Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choosing, with President Donald J. Trump leading by massive numbers.


“This right was correctly preserved in Colorado today and we urge the swift disposal of any and all remaining Democrat ballot challenges. Onward to total victory in 2024, we will Make America Great Again!” he said.

Days ago, a state judge in Michigan issued a ruling in a lawsuit aimed at preventing former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot under a Civil War-era provision in the U.S. Constitution.

“Court of Claims Judge James Redford rejected arguments that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol meant the court had to declare him ineligible for the presidency. Redford wrote that, because Trump followed state law in qualifying for the primary ballot, he cannot remove the former president,” The Associated Press reported.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

To Top