Rule of Law

Anderson v. Griswold

In Anderson v. Griswold, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether Donald Trump should be allowed to appear as a candidate on the Colorado ballot due to his disqualification from office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Case Summary

On September 6, 2023, a group of Colorado voters filed a complaint in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, alleging that Donald Trump is prohibited from appearing as a candidate on the Colorado ballot due to his disqualification for office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the District Court concluded that Donald Trump had engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, it nonetheless rejected the voters’ claim because, in its view, Section Three does not apply to presidents or the presidency.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies anyone “having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States” who then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or g[ave] aid or comfort to enemies thereof” from holding state or federal office. CAC has filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, which shows why Section Three applies to both presidents and the presidency.

Our brief made three principal points. First, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the presidency fell within the normal and ordinary meaning of an “office . . . under the United States,” and the president would have been understood to have taken an oath as an “officer of the United States.”

Dictionaries from the time of the drafting and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment show that the term “office” would have been understood to include the president, and the text of the Constitution itself refers to the presidency as an “office.” Before, during, and shortly after the Civil War, presidents wrote that they considered themselves “officers”; lawmakers, judges, and executive branch officials repeatedly referred to the president as an “officer of the Government”; and the Framers of Section Three often referred to the president as holding an “office” and serving as an “officer” of the United States.

Second, this broad text makes sense given the Framers’ plan for the Amendment. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to prohibit officeholders who betrayed their country from holding political power again, and repeatedly emphasized that Section Three applied to anyone who violated the oath they took to support the Constitution. As various statements from the legislative debates make clear, the Framers concluded that this goal would best be served by enacting a provision that would prevent former officials who had betrayed the country from assuming the office of the presidency.

Third, in the years following the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, courts consistently defined the term “officer” to have a broad scope, specifying that the relevant test for whether an individual was an “officer” within the reach of Section Three was whether or not the individual swore an oath of office. The president does and is thus an “officer” under this definition.

In sum, an interpretation of Section Three that exempts presidents and the presidency would depart from the provision’s clear text and be at odds with its history.

In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision, reversing the district court’s ruling and holding that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of the president under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore may not appear on the Colorado ballot. The Court explained that, contrary to the district court’s findings, Section Three does apply to former presidents and the office of the presidency, and thus Trump’s engagement in the January 6 insurrection disqualifies him from the office. The Court stayed its decision pending review by the United States Supreme Court.

Case Timeline

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.