The Colorado Supreme Court convened on Wednesday to discuss the contentious issue of whether former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment. Several justices expressed apprehension about their authority to intervene in this matter, highlighting the complexity of the case.

This lawsuit, amongst many others filed across the country, seeks to prevent Trump's potential return to the presidency. Legal experts believe that the Colorado case is on a fast-track trajectory, with expectations that it may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both Trump and the plaintiffs are appealing various aspects of Judge Sarah Wallace's ruling from last month. The ruling found that Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. However, Judge Wallace did not apply the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump from holding the presidency.

During the two-hour deep dive into the case, the justices grappled with different interpretations of the clause's text, expressing concern about the arguments put forth by the plaintiffs. Justice Richard Gabriel expressed reservations about the potentially overbroad definition of insurrection adopted by the district court, while Justice Carlos Samour questioned why the presidency was not explicitly mentioned in the clause.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group, filed the lawsuit on behalf of four Republicans and two independent Colorado voters. It is noteworthy that the group is trying to persuade a seven-member bench, all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors. Six of the justices have faced voters and won retention elections, while the seventh will do so next year.

The plaintiffs must meet multiple burdens to prove the jurisdiction of the court and that the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment extends to the presidency. The Amendment prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding "any office... under the United States" after taking an oath as "an officer of the United States" to support the Constitution. However, the clause fails to explicitly mention the presidency.

The justices also raised questions about the distinction between the title of "officer of the United States" and the role of the president, as well as the specific wording of the presidential oath. Furthermore, they debated the concept of "supporting the Constitution" and how it should be interpreted. These questions delved into both the linguistic nuances and historical context of the amendment's drafting in the 1860s.

If the losing side in this case chooses to do so, they have the option to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice William Hood acknowledged this possibility, stating that if the Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to intervene and determine the applicable standard.

This case is just one of many ongoing efforts to prevent a potential second term for Donald Trump by utilizing the 14th Amendment. While some individuals have filed numerous lawsuits, these have been widely dismissed as frivolous by legal experts. Other lawsuits in different states are progressing at a slower pace.

The nonprofit organization Free Speech For People has filed lawsuits in Minnesota, Michigan, and Oregon. In Minnesota, the highest court declined to remove Trump from the primary ballot but left open the possibility of a new challenge in the general election if he secures the nomination. The case in Michigan is currently under appeal, and in Oregon, Free Speech for People recently filed a lawsuit against Trump.

As the legal battle continues, the ultimate resolution of the case remains uncertain. The Colorado Supreme Court's hesitance to disqualify Trump from the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment indicates the complex and highly debated nature of the issue.