A liberal group filed a lawsuit Wednesday to exclude former President Trump from the Colorado primary, arguing that he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the constitution , targeting candidates who have supported an insurgency.

The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the first step in a legal challenge that appears destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. The complaint was filed on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado by the Citizens Group for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

It will shake up the already troubled 2024 primary, in which Trump, the leading Republican nominee, will face four separate criminal cases.

Liberal groups have demanded that key state election officials bar Trump under the clause prohibiting those involved in an uprising or rebellion against the Constitution from holding higher office. No one has taken that step, seeking advice from the courts on how to interpret a clause that has only been used a handful of times since the 1960s.

While a few fringe figures in a few states have filed sparsely written lawsuits citing the clause, Wednesday’s lawsuit was the first by an organization with significant legal resources. It could lead to similar problems in other states, potentially creating conflicting rulings that the Supreme Court would have to settle.

Colorado Secretary of State Democrat Jena Griswold said in a statement that she hoped this case would provide election officials with guidance on Trump’s suitability to run for office.

Trump on track to beat California delegates in GOP presidential primaries, polls show

The lawsuit argues that the case is clear given Trump’s attempt to reverse his 2020 election loss to then Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his support for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump has said he has nothing did wrong. his actions.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, helped ensure civil rights for freed slaves and ultimately for all people in the United States. But it was also used to prevent former Confederate officials from joining Congress after the Civil War and taking over the government they had just rebelled against.

The clause cited in the lawsuit allows Congress to lift the ban, which it did in 1872 when the political will to continue banning former Confederates waned. The facility has hardly ever been used since then.

CREW and law professors from both parties argue that the amendment is clear-cut and qualifies for president, as does the Constitution’s mandate that a candidate for the White House be at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen.

What is an incendiary conspiracy? Rare, but now part of the January 6 insurgency criminal cases

But others note that there is widespread unease over the provision and that a case on the issue has not reached Washington judges.

The clause lists a wide range of offices under the United States and states that the provision applies to presidential elections, but not to the presidency itself. There is an ongoing debate among some pundits about whether Trump’s actions constitute an insurrection within the meaning of the amendment.

In its complaint, CREW asked the court to expedite the case so it can be resolved before the state’s primary vote on Jan. 5. We understand that there is great interest from states across the country in this issue, and that it needs to be resolved. Move quickly to get clarity, Donald Sherman, CREW’s lead attorney, told reporters on a conference call.

A Trump spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

Georgia’s foreign minister warned in the Wall Street Journal that using the 14th Amendment in this way could lead the country down a dark path.

If a Secretary of State impeaches a candidate, it would only amplify the grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt, said Republican Brad Raffensperger, who angered Trump when he refused to declare Trump the 2020 Georgia winner to call out. the ability to choose is fundamentally un-American.

The 14th Amendment was used last year to bar a New Mexico district commissioner from office who entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. That was the first time in 100 years it was used. In 1919, Congress refused to seat a Socialist, arguing that he provided aid and comfort to the nation’s enemies during World War I.

Another liberal group, Free Speech for People, unsuccessfully tried to use the provision to prevent Republican representatives. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina did not run for re-election last year.

Ex-Proud Boys national leader Enrique Tarrio sentenced to 22 years for assault on January 6

The judge overseeing Greene’s case ruled in her favor. Cawthorn’s case came under discussion after he was defeated in his primary.

CREW said it expects to bring more cases in other states and expects several groups to do so as well. The organization chose Colorado, the organization’s leaders said, because the state allows voting challenges to be taken directly to court, and it has amassed a prominent list of plaintiffs, including a former Republican leader of both Houses of the Legislature and a conservative columnist for the Denver Post.

There was another reason, Sherman noted: In 2015, a Guyana-born naturalized citizen lost his lawsuit to run in the state’s primaries because he failed to convince a federal magistrate that the constitution’s requirement that he had to be a natural born citizen was unfair. .

A federal appeals judge upheld that ruling, barring him from voting. The judge was Neil Gorsuch, now a member of the Supreme Court.