In a landmark 4-3 decision Tuesday night, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to run for president next year under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office.

While the ruling will no doubt go before the U.S. Supreme Court in short order, and Trump’s reelection campaign has vowed to do so, similar challenges are moving forward in other states. The Colorado court stayed its ruling until Jan. 4 to give the Supreme Court time to decide on hearing the challenge.

What You Need To Know

  • The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to run for president next year under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

  • J. Michael Luttig, a retired U.S. Appeals Court judge appointed by George H.W. Bush, told MSNBC that the ruling was "a masterful judicial opinion of constitutional law" and believed the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm it

  • Luttig’s opinion stood in stark contrast to that of ex-Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb, who predicted on CNN Tuesday night that the high court could unanimously rule against the Colorado decision

  • Republicans in Congress, as well as those hoping to defeat Trump in the 2024 GOP primary, railed against the ruling

  • Speaking to reporters in Wisconsin ahead of an event Wednesday, President Joe Biden said he would not comment on the court case, but when asked if Trump qualifies as an insurrectionist, he replied that "it’s certainly self-evident"

While Republican lawmakers and 2024 presidential hopefuls largely railed against the ruling, one prominent conservative jurist called it “a masterful judicial opinion of constitutional law.”

J. Michael Luttig, a retired U.S. Appeals Court judge appointed by George H.W. Bush, said on MSNBC Tuesday night that the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling upheld a lower court’s ruling that the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol was an insurrection, which the former president “engaged in,” but reversed the previous decision that the presidency was exempt from the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.

“This is not a political decision,” Luttig, who testified before the House Jan. 6 panel last year and advised then-Vice President Mike Pence about his role in the electoral count certification, told MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle.

“This is an opinion of constitutional law,” he said Tuesday. “It has nothing to do with politics … I’ve heard some commentators tonight jump to the conclusion that this is a political decision by a liberal state supreme court. It couldn’t be anything further from the truth than that.

"The opinion by the Colorado Supreme Court is a masterful judicial opinion of constitutional law on the applicability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Luttig continued. “It will stand the test of time … I think that the Supreme Court of the United States ought to affirm this decision, and based on the objective law in this instance … I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm this decision.”

Luttig’s opinion stood in stark contrast to that of ex-Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb, who predicted on CNN Tuesday night that the high court could unanimously rule against the Colorado decision.

“I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump,” Cobb told CNN, later adding: “I do believe it could be 9-0, because I think the law is clear.”

Republicans in Congress, as well as those hoping to defeat Trump in the 2024 GOP primary, also took umbrage with the Colorado decision.

“I will tell you that I don’t think Donald Trump needs to be president, I think I need to be president,” former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley told reporters in Iowa, adding: “But I will beat him fair and square. We don’t need to have judges making these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions.”

“I do not think Donald Trump should be prevented from being President of the United States by any court,” former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said at a town hall in New Hampshire Tuesday night. “I think he should be prevented from being President of the United States by the voters of this country.”

In response to Utah Sen. Mike Lee calling the decision “lawless thuggery masquerading as jurisprudence,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Democrats of “abusing judicial power to remove a candidate from the ballot based on spurious legal grounds” and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the ruling.

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy went as far as to say he would withdraw from the Colorado GOP ballot amid Trump's removal, and urged Christie, DeSantis and Haley to do the same.

Independent 2024 candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lamented the ruling in a post on social media, comparing it to how other countries conduct elections: "When a court in another country disqualifies an opposition candidate from running, we say, 'That’s not a real democracy.' Now it’s happening here."

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said Tuesday he will introduce legislation to give the U.S. Supreme Court sole authority to decide 14th Amendment challenges — and withhold federal funding from states who “misuse” it “for political purposes.”

“Regardless of whether you support or oppose former President Donald Trump, it is outrageous to see left-wing activists make a mockery of our political system by scheming with partisan state officials and pressuring judges to remove him from the ballot,” Tillis said in a statement. “American voters, not partisan activists, should decide who we elect as our President.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch ally of the former president who spearheaded a legal brief in support of an unsuccessful lawsuit to overturn the results of the 2020 election, called the ruling a “thinly veiled partisan attack” and expressed confidence the Supreme Court will reverse what he branded a “reckless decision.”

Several of Johnson’s House Republican colleagues agreed, including South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, who accused critics of Trump of “abusing the Constitution and the rule of law to attempt to keep him out of office,” and New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, who called the ruling “unAmerican” and predicted it will bolster the former president’s reelection campaign.

Some Democrats applauded the ruling, including Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager in Trump's second impeachment over the Jan. 6 riot and a former constitutional law professor.

"This is just a question of law," Raskin told MSNBC, comparing the situation to a 14-year-old trying to run for president despite the U.S. Constitution stating that the president must be 35 years of age or older. "This disqualification clause says you cannot be on the ballot for president and you cannot serve as president if you have participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States. So, I would think that regardless of what your politics are or what your party is, everybody should agree that this is a question of law that's got to be settled by the courts."

Speaking to reporters in Wisconsin ahead of an event Wednesday, President Biden said he would not comment on the court case, but when asked if Trump qualifies as an insurrectionist, he replied that "it’s certainly self-evident."

"You saw it all," Biden said of the Jan. 6 attack. "Now whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the court make that decision, but he certainly supported an insurrection. There's no question about it. None. Zero. And he seems to be doubling down about everything."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.