The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a unanimous decision on the constitutionality of its “Insurrection Clause” prohibits former President Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot in 2024.

“The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three” of the Fourteenth Amendment, the ruling states.

The controversial ruling partially overturns a previous ruling of Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace, who ruled in November that Trump is not an official or employee of the United States as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Amendment thus cannot be used to exclude him from being as a candidate on the Colorado primary ballot.

In his Dissent in his dissent, the Chief Justice Boatright wrote, “Dismissal is particularly appropriate here because the Electors brought their challenge without a determination from a proceeding (e.g., a prosecution for an insurrection-related offense) with more rigorous procedures to ensure adequate due process.”

In partially overturning Wallace In partially reversing Wallace, the Court nearly enticed to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to take over before the 4th of January 2024.

“If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court,” the ruling says.

The Court did not agree with Trump’s assertions the actions of his administration were not protected by freedom of speech.

“We consider and reject President Trump’s argument that his speech on January 6 was protected by the First Amendment,” the ruling states in a way that seems to disregard Trump’s demands on the day of protest to behave “peacefully and patriotically.”

The opinion is read in part:

The fact that at one point in his speech the President Trump stated”everyone here will soon be marching to the Capitol building “everyone here will soon be marching to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” does not convince us that the district court made a mistake in determining that the first part of the Brandenberg test was satisfied. Check out Thompson 590 F. Supp. 3d, at 113-14. The solitary quote “cannot protect [President 20] Thompson was] a subject of an appeal to dismiss. In the end, the court ruled that the speech of President Trump “plausibly [involved] words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment.” Thompson 590 F. Supp. 3d at 115. also see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 553 (2007) (requiring plaintiffs to prove that their claims are credible to be able to prevail on a motion to dismiss due to not stating an allegation). 128 Trumpis arguing against an argument that he’s admonition to the crowd, which he delivered nearly an hour later to ‘fight like hell prior to bringing people to the Capitol in its context within the wider Speech and the circumstances did not constitute a protected speech.” The court affirmed. at 117.

The Court’s decision to decide on its own that Trump took part in the insurrection comes despite Trump not being found guilty of this or any other crime, or found guilty in court for being guilty of the offense insurrection. Trump was acquitted by U.S. Senate of charges of insurrection, and has denied any the allegations.

To support its legal claim in support of its legal claim, the Court relies on its reference to the U.S. House January 6 Select Committee, notwithstanding that Trump was acquitted by the charges of the House before the Senate.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung issued a statement that reads:

The all-Democratic-appointed Colorado Supreme Court was able to denied President Trump and has backed the left-wing, Soros-funded group’s scheme to interfere with the election for Crooked Joe Biden by removing Trump’s name from the ballot and removing the right of Colorado voters to choose the candidate they prefer. Democrat Party leaders are in fearful in the face of the overwhelming lead that President Trump has amassed in polls. They’ve lost confidence in the defunct Biden administration and are making every effort to stop American people from taking them out of office in November. It is reported that the Colorado Supreme Court issued a totally flawed decision this evening and we are preparing an appeal with the United States Supreme Court and an additional request to stay the decision, which is utterly undemocratic. We have complete confidence of this Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and stop this series of unAmerican lawsuits.

In a different dissent, Justice Carlos Samour wrote, “Given the current absence of federal legislation to enforce Section Three, and given that President Trump has not been charged pursuant to section 2383, the district court should have granted his September 29 motion to dismiss.”

He added, “the court received and considered a partial congressional report, the admissibility of which is not beyond reproach… I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”

This Colorado lawsuit is among numerous lawsuits filed in states across the country, citing the’s “Insurrection Clause” for booting Trump out of the electoral process. Liberal groups have strategically filed lawsuits across the nation to stop Trump from being on the ballot in what supporters call “lawfare,” but Trump has had favorable results with respect to New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan and, prior to the ruling on Tuesday was reversed, Colorado.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court has never ruled decisively on the nature in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ballots for Colorado’s primary election date, which is on March 5, 2024 must be approved on or before January 5, prior to Colorado supreme court’s date to allow it to decide. U.S. Supreme Court to act.

This case involves Anderson and. Griswold, Case No. 23SA300 before the Colorado Supreme Court.