Judge overseeing case to remove Trump from ballot agrees to order banning threats and intimidation

19

The Colorado judge presiding over the pivotal lawsuit aimed at preventing former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 presidential ballot has taken a significant step. On Friday, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace issued a protective order to forbid threats and intimidation within the case. This decision was prompted by the imperative need to ensure the safety of all involved parties, including her own staff, as this groundbreaking legal battle unfolds.

Judge Wallace expressed her full understanding of the concerns raised regarding the well-being of everyone involved, including the litigants and legal representatives. She acknowledged the tumultuous climate surrounding similar cases and emphasized the necessity of safeguarding all participants.

The protective order explicitly prohibits any party involved in the case from making threatening or intimidating statements. Notably, Scott Gessler, the former Colorado secretary of state who represents Trump in this matter, opposed the issuance of this order. He argued that such protective measures were redundant since threats and intimidation are already proscribed by existing laws.

This protective order was requested by legal counsel representing Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal advocacy group. Their objective is to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidential ballot in 2024 by invoking a seldom-used clause from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, dating back to the Civil War era.

It’s worth noting that Gessler pointed out that contentious rhetoric has not been confined to one side of the political spectrum in this case. He acknowledged the presence of robust political debate surrounding the issue, characterizing it as a focal point of considerable attention.

Across the nation, numerous lawsuits have been filed with the aim of disqualifying Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. These legal actions hinge on the 14th Amendment’s clause, which bars individuals who have sworn an oath to the Constitution and subsequently “engaged in insurrection” against it from seeking public office. The arguments put forth by these lawsuits center on Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, which sought to impede the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

The case in Colorado stands out as the first initiated by a group backed by substantial legal resources. It is widely anticipated that this matter will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never before ruled on the insurrection provision outlined in section three of the 14th Amendment.

Judge Wallace has scheduled a hearing for October 30th to deliberate whether Trump should be excluded from the ballot in accordance with Colorado law, which prohibits candidates who fail to meet the qualifications for higher office from appearing on ballots. Her intention is to allow ample time for the Colorado Supreme Court, and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court, to review the decision before the state’s January 5th deadline for setting its 2024 presidential primary ballot.

Simultaneously, a parallel case in Minnesota, filed by another well-funded liberal group, is set to be heard by the state’s supreme court on November 2nd.

Trump’s legal team is poised to submit two motions aimed at dismissing the lawsuit later in the day. One of these motions will argue that the litigation constitutes an effort to retaliate against Trump’s exercise of his free speech rights. Judge Wallace has scheduled an October 13th hearing to address this claim.

In a courtroom discussion, Sean Grimsley, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case, proposed the protective order, citing last week’s actions by federal prosecutor Jack Smith, who sought a gag order against Trump due to threats made during his prosecution of the former president for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Grimsley noted that at least one of the involved parties had shown a propensity to use social media platforms, including Trump’s own network, Truth Social, to comment on witnesses and the legal proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Legal Battle Trump 2024 Ballot

More about Legal Battle Trump 2024 Ballot

• 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
• Colorado Law on Candidate Qualifications
• U.S. Supreme Court
• Minnesota Supreme Court
• Trump’s Social Network, Truth Social