Colorado
Supreme Court set to hear Trump challenge to Colorado ballot ban that cited 'insurrection'
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on he as meets with Colorado Governor Jared Polis and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum in the Cabinet Room of the White House on May 13, 2020 in Washington, DC.
Doug Mills-Pool | Getty Images
The Supreme Court is set Thursday morning to hear oral arguments on an effort by former President Donald Trump to reverse a ruling by Colorado’s top court barring him from that state’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot.
The arguments, which are expected to last several hours, come as Trump has a commanding lead in the national GOP primary race, with a long-shot bid from former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley appearing to be the only potential stumbling block to him securing the party’s nomination this summer.
The Colorado Supreme Court in December ruled that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president because he “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the 2021 Capitol riot as part of his effort to reverse his loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
That bombshell 4-3 ruling was based on Section Three of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states “no person” can serve as an officer of the United States who, having previously taken an oath of federal office, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S.
Six Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado had filed the lawsuit that led to the state Supreme Court ruling.
Trump’s lawyers in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last month argued that the Colorado court decision was “based on a dubious interpretation” of Section Three, while noting that similar efforts to bar Trump from presidential ballots are underway in more than 30 states.
The U.S. Supreme Court “should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
Those lawyers said that Trump “is not even subject” to Section Three because a president is “not an ‘officer of the United States’ under the Constitution.”
The attorneys also argue that even if Trump were subject to the provision, he did not engage in any conduct that qualifies as an insurrection.
Sean Grimsley, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case that led to Trump’s disqualification, during a call with reporters Wednesday said that Trump’s claim that he was not an officer of the United States as president has become his lead argument in the case.
Grimsley predicted that claim will be closely scrutinized by the Supreme Court justices during oral arguments.
“I think the justices will be very interested in that question, if only because President or former President Trump has made that the lead argument in this case,” Grimsley said.
He and another lawyer for the plaintiffs dismissed that argument.
They said it was obvious that a president is an officer of the United States and that it requires “linguistic acrobatics” to argue otherwise.
Mario Nicolais, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, acknowledged that to win the case the attorneys on his side “have to win every argument” they are making to disqualify Trump.
“We think we will,” Nicolais said.
“We think we win so many of those arguments on multiple different levels, and that’s why we feel very strongly that we will win this case,” he said.
The plaintiffs’ key arguments are that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, and Section Three applies to insurrectionist presidents, that state courts can adjudicate Section Three under state ballot access laws, and that states can exclude presidential candidates from ballots if they are deemed constitutionally ineligible.
The plaintiffs also argue that Congress does not have to first deem a candidate ineligible under Section Three.
“Donald Trump is disqualified today,” Nicolais said. “He was disqualified on January 6, 2021 when he engaged in that, he disqualified himself under our Constitution.”
Three of the nine Supreme Court justices who will hear his appeal Thursday were appointed by Trump — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Three other justices who were appointed by Republican presidents with Trump’s appointees comprise a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court.
Despite that bloc, Trump has failed to get the Supreme Court to take his side in a number of past cases, including in his efforts to challenge the voting processes and results during the 2020 presidential election.
Colorado
Rain and snow roll through Colorado on Sunday
A quick system is rolling through Colorado on Sunday. The mountains will see some snow; however, the northern mountains won’t see much at all. A winter weather advisory is in effect through midnight tonight for Southwestern Colorado, to include the San Juan Mountain Range and Pikes Peak. Four to eight inches is possible, with a foot for the higher mountain passes.
The Denver metro area and Eastern Plains could see some rain showers on Sunday afternoon.
This is a quick system that will clear out overnight, and the work week will start off mild and dry. If you are traveling for the Thanksgiving holiday in Colorado, the weather will be ideal. High temperatures in the Denver metro area will be in the mid- to upper-50s.
All of that changes as we look forward to next weekend. It’s still too far out to have high confidence, but there is a chance Denver could see its first snow next weekend. Even if Denver doesn’t get snow, the temperatures will plummet due to an arctic blast. High temperatures will only be in the 20s and 30s with lows in the teens and single digits.
Colorado
Colorado ski resort ranks among the best in country
Colorado
Durango family detained by ICE in southwestern Colorado seeks return to Colombia
A father and his children detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Durango last month say they want to return to their home country of Colombia.
Immigration officials admitted during a federal court hearing that Fernando Jaramillo Solano was not their intended target during the enforcement action in Durango on Oct. 27. Jaramillo Solano was driving his children, ages 12 and 15, to school when they were detained.
The arrests prompted protests and a physical conflict between agents and demonstrators that the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Customs & Border Protection are now investigating.
“Fernando the father, is exhausted after being held in detention for almost a month. His decision to stop fighting from inside detention isn’t about giving up, it’s about getting his children out of jail, where no child should ever have to languish,” said Matt Karkut, Executive Director of Compañeros Four Corners Immigrant Resource Center.
He said the detention and separation from the children’s mother, Estela Patiño, who remains in Durango, is devastating.
“This case is not an isolated incident but rather a trend, a worrying one of families across the country that are being pushed to abandon their legal rights because detention is so traumatizing, especially for children,” said Karkut.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin provided a statement addressing allegations of mistreatment of the family during their initial detention in Durango before being transferred to a family facility in Texas, and an update about their imminent return to Colombia:
“This is disgusting and wrong. Members of the media should really stop and ask themselves why these people ran directly to the press and activists to make such heinous allegations, rather than report it to any law enforcement authorities. The facts are that on October 27, ICE arrested Fernando Jaramillo Solano, an illegal alien from Colombia, during a targeted immigration enforcement operation in Durango, Colorado.
Jaramillo illegally entered the country on June 24, 2024, near San Diego, California, and was RELEASED into this country [by] the Biden administration. He and his two children did not utilize the CBP Home program and are therefore do not qualify for its incentives. They were granted a voluntary departure by the immigration judge and ICE will facilitate their return.
Additionally, no one was denied adequate food. It’s disgusting the [Associated Press] is peddling these lies about law enforcement. This type of garbage is contributing to our officers facing a 1000% increase in assaults and a 8000% increase in death threats
“ICE does not separate families. Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration’s immigration enforcement. Parents can take control of their departure with the CBP Home app and reserve the chance to come back the right legal way.”
Karkut said advocates will continue to work for the family’s release.
“This isn’t a family without a case by the way. Estela, the mother, is the primary asylum applicant and her claim is very strong. Members of her family have been killed by violence in Colombia that would threaten Estela if she returns. So she has a very legitimate reason to fear going back. And our asylum laws exist precisely for people in exactly her situation.”
-
Business7 days ago
Fire survivors can use this new portal to rebuild faster and save money
-
World5 days agoFrance and Germany support simplification push for digital rules
-
News6 days agoCourt documents shed light on Indiana shooting that sparked stand-your-ground debate
-
World6 days agoCalls for answers grow over Canada’s interrogation of Israel critic
-
World1 week ago2% of Russian global oil supply affected following Ukrainian attack
-
World6 days agoSinclair Snaps Up 8% Stake in Scripps in Advance of Potential Merger
-
Business5 days ago
Amazon’s Zoox offers free robotaxi rides in San Francisco
-
Politics6 days agoDuckworth fires staffer who claimed to be attorney for detained illegal immigrant with criminal history



