Our clients, six brave Colorado voters, sued to disqualify Trump from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection. That suit, though ultimately unsuccessful, showed at once the promise of our democracy and the courage needed to sustain it.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not say who can enforce its prohibition on oath-taking insurrectionists holding office again. One way to read that constitutional silence is that many people can enforce it. Another way to read it is that almost no one can. Similar gaps and voids occur throughout our Constitution—expected in a document written a long time ago by those who hoped it would endure in a changing world with changing challenges.
These gaps and voids require the courage of Americans to fill them. We must know the Constitution’s promises—freedom of speech, equal protection—and must enforce them: to demand that rights have remedies, to insist that no one is above the law.
We saw that courage firsthand in our case. Our clients—including lifelong Republican Norma Anderson—bravely raised their hands to challenge Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. They faced notoriety and danger in doing so. But they believed that our Constitution, as amended by Section 3, was meant to protect our democracy from those who sought to overthrow it and believed that our democracy faced an immediate danger in the reelection of an insurrectionist.
Our trial judge—who did not choose this case—guided the case through trial quickly. In so doing, she navigated an uncommon process and gave Trump extensive process. Colorado’s Supreme Court chose to review the opinion, hearing argument and deciding the case in less than a month. All Colorado judges involved in the case acted with courage to decide a hard case that needed resolution. They did not see the procedural gaps in Section 3 as a loophole to escape a difficult decision. They did not shrink from duty, invent reasons why they should not hear the case, or claim that ordinary citizens could not sue a former president. And whether they agreed or disagreed with our position, all our state judges courageously did their best to get an important case right.
The courage displayed by these Colorado voters and judges honored the courage and sacrifice of our fellow Americans in the long fight for the Fourteenth Amendment and the important protections in Section 3. From our founding, many fought to expand voting to Black Americans and women. After over a million Americans died in the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments expanded the promise of our Constitution and equipped our democracy with new protections against those who would seek to subvert it. But these bulwarks fell far short because of broad resistance, violence, and concerted action by all branches of the federal government to undercut these constitutional protections. But Americans did not give up, and after decades of fighting, the courage of many led to a Fourteenth Amendment with rights in reality and not just on paper through the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
The justices at the United States Supreme Court took a different path, defined by cowardice, not courage. At argument, it was clear that they, unlike their Colorado counterparts, did not want to decide the case. And so the Court invented a reason—not pressed by any party—to avoid the merits. Our case certainly presented hard questions that thoughtful people could disagree on. But the Court used a gap to create a loophole, and in so doing read a right that our fellow citizens fought and died for out of the Constitution altogether.
It takes courage to say that our Constitution means what it says, because that meaning has consequences for the powerful. Over the last two election cycles, many Americans of both parties have chosen courage—to vote, to count votes, to improve our voting system, and to hold those who sought to disrupt democracy accountable.
This courage, beginning with our Founders who formed a government, where nearly 250 years later, six citizens could have their day in court against a former president, is what our democracy requires to endure. We need to expect each other to be courageous and celebrate acts of courage big and small. And we must not let the cowardice of our leaders—elected or appointed—take that courage from us.
Our clients, six brave Colorado voters, sued to disqualify Trump from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection. That suit, though ultimately unsuccessful, showed at once the promise of our democracy and the courage needed to sustain it.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not say who can enforce its prohibition on oath-taking insurrectionists holding office again. One way to read that constitutional silence is that many people can enforce it. Another way to read it is that almost no one can. Similar gaps and voids occur throughout our Constitution—expected in a document written a long time ago by those who hoped it would endure in a changing world with changing challenges.
These gaps and voids require the courage of Americans to fill them. We must know the Constitution’s promises—freedom of speech, equal protection—and must enforce them: to demand that rights have remedies, to insist that no one is above the law.
We saw that courage firsthand in our case. Our clients—including lifelong Republican Norma Anderson—bravely raised their hands to challenge Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. They faced notoriety and danger in doing so. But they believed that our Constitution, as amended by Section 3, was meant to protect our democracy from those who sought to overthrow it and believed that our democracy faced an immediate danger in the reelection of an insurrectionist.
Our trial judge—who did not choose this case—guided the case through trial quickly. In so doing, she navigated an uncommon process and gave Trump extensive process. Colorado’s Supreme Court chose to review the opinion, hearing argument and deciding the case in less than a month. All Colorado judges involved in the case acted with courage to decide a hard case that needed resolution. They did not see the procedural gaps in Section 3 as a loophole to escape a difficult decision. They did not shrink from duty, invent reasons why they should not hear the case, or claim that ordinary citizens could not sue a former president. And whether they agreed or disagreed with our position, all our state judges courageously did their best to get an important case right.
The courage displayed by these Colorado voters and judges honored the courage and sacrifice of our fellow Americans in the long fight for the Fourteenth Amendment and the important protections in Section 3. From our founding, many fought to expand voting to Black Americans and women. After over a million Americans died in the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments expanded the promise of our Constitution and equipped our democracy with new protections against those who would seek to subvert it. But these bulwarks fell far short because of broad resistance, violence, and concerted action by all branches of the federal government to undercut these constitutional protections. But Americans did not give up, and after decades of fighting, the courage of many led to a Fourteenth Amendment with rights in reality and not just on paper through the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
The justices at the United States Supreme Court took a different path, defined by cowardice, not courage. At argument, it was clear that they, unlike their Colorado counterparts, did not want to decide the case. And so the Court invented a reason—not pressed by any party—to avoid the merits. Our case certainly presented hard questions that thoughtful people could disagree on. But the Court used a gap to create a loophole, and in so doing read a right that our fellow citizens fought and died for out of the Constitution altogether.
It takes courage to say that our Constitution means what it says, because that meaning has consequences for the powerful. Over the last two election cycles, many Americans of both parties have chosen courage—to vote, to count votes, to improve our voting system, and to hold those who sought to disrupt democracy accountable.
This courage, beginning with our Founders who formed a government, where nearly 250 years later, six citizens could have their day in court against a former president, is what our democracy requires to endure. We need to expect each other to be courageous and celebrate acts of courage big and small. And we must not let the cowardice of our leaders—elected or appointed—take that courage from us.
Our clients, six brave Colorado voters, sued to disqualify Trump from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection. That suit, though ultimately unsuccessful, showed at once the promise of our democracy and the courage needed to sustain it.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not say who can enforce its prohibition on oath-taking insurrectionists holding office again. One way to read that constitutional silence is that many people can enforce it. Another way to read it is that almost no one can. Similar gaps and voids occur throughout our Constitution—expected in a document written a long time ago by those who hoped it would endure in a changing world with changing challenges.
These gaps and voids require the courage of Americans to fill them. We must know the Constitution’s promises—freedom of speech, equal protection—and must enforce them: to demand that rights have remedies, to insist that no one is above the law.
We saw that courage firsthand in our case. Our clients—including lifelong Republican Norma Anderson—bravely raised their hands to challenge Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. They faced notoriety and danger in doing so. But they believed that our Constitution, as amended by Section 3, was meant to protect our democracy from those who sought to overthrow it and believed that our democracy faced an immediate danger in the reelection of an insurrectionist.
Our trial judge—who did not choose this case—guided the case through trial quickly. In so doing, she navigated an uncommon process and gave Trump extensive process. Colorado’s Supreme Court chose to review the opinion, hearing argument and deciding the case in less than a month. All Colorado judges involved in the case acted with courage to decide a hard case that needed resolution. They did not see the procedural gaps in Section 3 as a loophole to escape a difficult decision. They did not shrink from duty, invent reasons why they should not hear the case, or claim that ordinary citizens could not sue a former president. And whether they agreed or disagreed with our position, all our state judges courageously did their best to get an important case right.
The courage displayed by these Colorado voters and judges honored the courage and sacrifice of our fellow Americans in the long fight for the Fourteenth Amendment and the important protections in Section 3. From our founding, many fought to expand voting to Black Americans and women. After over a million Americans died in the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments expanded the promise of our Constitution and equipped our democracy with new protections against those who would seek to subvert it. But these bulwarks fell far short because of broad resistance, violence, and concerted action by all branches of the federal government to undercut these constitutional protections. But Americans did not give up, and after decades of fighting, the courage of many led to a Fourteenth Amendment with rights in reality and not just on paper through the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
The justices at the United States Supreme Court took a different path, defined by cowardice, not courage. At argument, it was clear that they, unlike their Colorado counterparts, did not want to decide the case. And so the Court invented a reason—not pressed by any party—to avoid the merits. Our case certainly presented hard questions that thoughtful people could disagree on. But the Court used a gap to create a loophole, and in so doing read a right that our fellow citizens fought and died for out of the Constitution altogether.
It takes courage to say that our Constitution means what it says, because that meaning has consequences for the powerful. Over the last two election cycles, many Americans of both parties have chosen courage—to vote, to count votes, to improve our voting system, and to hold those who sought to disrupt democracy accountable.
This courage, beginning with our Founders who formed a government, where nearly 250 years later, six citizens could have their day in court against a former president, is what our democracy requires to endure. We need to expect each other to be courageous and celebrate acts of courage big and small. And we must not let the cowardice of our leaders—elected or appointed—take that courage from us.
Our clients, six brave Colorado voters, sued to disqualify Trump from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection. That suit, though ultimately unsuccessful, showed at once the promise of our democracy and the courage needed to sustain it.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not say who can enforce its prohibition on oath-taking insurrectionists holding office again. One way to read that constitutional silence is that many people can enforce it. Another way to read it is that almost no one can. Similar gaps and voids occur throughout our Constitution—expected in a document written a long time ago by those who hoped it would endure in a changing world with changing challenges.
These gaps and voids require the courage of Americans to fill them. We must know the Constitution’s promises—freedom of speech, equal protection—and must enforce them: to demand that rights have remedies, to insist that no one is above the law.
We saw that courage firsthand in our case. Our clients—including lifelong Republican Norma Anderson—bravely raised their hands to challenge Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. They faced notoriety and danger in doing so. But they believed that our Constitution, as amended by Section 3, was meant to protect our democracy from those who sought to overthrow it and believed that our democracy faced an immediate danger in the reelection of an insurrectionist.
Our trial judge—who did not choose this case—guided the case through trial quickly. In so doing, she navigated an uncommon process and gave Trump extensive process. Colorado’s Supreme Court chose to review the opinion, hearing argument and deciding the case in less than a month. All Colorado judges involved in the case acted with courage to decide a hard case that needed resolution. They did not see the procedural gaps in Section 3 as a loophole to escape a difficult decision. They did not shrink from duty, invent reasons why they should not hear the case, or claim that ordinary citizens could not sue a former president. And whether they agreed or disagreed with our position, all our state judges courageously did their best to get an important case right.
The courage displayed by these Colorado voters and judges honored the courage and sacrifice of our fellow Americans in the long fight for the Fourteenth Amendment and the important protections in Section 3. From our founding, many fought to expand voting to Black Americans and women. After over a million Americans died in the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments expanded the promise of our Constitution and equipped our democracy with new protections against those who would seek to subvert it. But these bulwarks fell far short because of broad resistance, violence, and concerted action by all branches of the federal government to undercut these constitutional protections. But Americans did not give up, and after decades of fighting, the courage of many led to a Fourteenth Amendment with rights in reality and not just on paper through the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
The justices at the United States Supreme Court took a different path, defined by cowardice, not courage. At argument, it was clear that they, unlike their Colorado counterparts, did not want to decide the case. And so the Court invented a reason—not pressed by any party—to avoid the merits. Our case certainly presented hard questions that thoughtful people could disagree on. But the Court used a gap to create a loophole, and in so doing read a right that our fellow citizens fought and died for out of the Constitution altogether.
It takes courage to say that our Constitution means what it says, because that meaning has consequences for the powerful. Over the last two election cycles, many Americans of both parties have chosen courage—to vote, to count votes, to improve our voting system, and to hold those who sought to disrupt democracy accountable.
This courage, beginning with our Founders who formed a government, where nearly 250 years later, six citizens could have their day in court against a former president, is what our democracy requires to endure. We need to expect each other to be courageous and celebrate acts of courage big and small. And we must not let the cowardice of our leaders—elected or appointed—take that courage from us.
Our clients, six brave Colorado voters, sued to disqualify Trump from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection. That suit, though ultimately unsuccessful, showed at once the promise of our democracy and the courage needed to sustain it.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not say who can enforce its prohibition on oath-taking insurrectionists holding office again. One way to read that constitutional silence is that many people can enforce it. Another way to read it is that almost no one can. Similar gaps and voids occur throughout our Constitution—expected in a document written a long time ago by those who hoped it would endure in a changing world with changing challenges.
These gaps and voids require the courage of Americans to fill them. We must know the Constitution’s promises—freedom of speech, equal protection—and must enforce them: to demand that rights have remedies, to insist that no one is above the law.
We saw that courage firsthand in our case. Our clients—including lifelong Republican Norma Anderson—bravely raised their hands to challenge Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. They faced notoriety and danger in doing so. But they believed that our Constitution, as amended by Section 3, was meant to protect our democracy from those who sought to overthrow it and believed that our democracy faced an immediate danger in the reelection of an insurrectionist.
Our trial judge—who did not choose this case—guided the case through trial quickly. In so doing, she navigated an uncommon process and gave Trump extensive process. Colorado’s Supreme Court chose to review the opinion, hearing argument and deciding the case in less than a month. All Colorado judges involved in the case acted with courage to decide a hard case that needed resolution. They did not see the procedural gaps in Section 3 as a loophole to escape a difficult decision. They did not shrink from duty, invent reasons why they should not hear the case, or claim that ordinary citizens could not sue a former president. And whether they agreed or disagreed with our position, all our state judges courageously did their best to get an important case right.
The courage displayed by these Colorado voters and judges honored the courage and sacrifice of our fellow Americans in the long fight for the Fourteenth Amendment and the important protections in Section 3. From our founding, many fought to expand voting to Black Americans and women. After over a million Americans died in the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments expanded the promise of our Constitution and equipped our democracy with new protections against those who would seek to subvert it. But these bulwarks fell far short because of broad resistance, violence, and concerted action by all branches of the federal government to undercut these constitutional protections. But Americans did not give up, and after decades of fighting, the courage of many led to a Fourteenth Amendment with rights in reality and not just on paper through the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
The justices at the United States Supreme Court took a different path, defined by cowardice, not courage. At argument, it was clear that they, unlike their Colorado counterparts, did not want to decide the case. And so the Court invented a reason—not pressed by any party—to avoid the merits. Our case certainly presented hard questions that thoughtful people could disagree on. But the Court used a gap to create a loophole, and in so doing read a right that our fellow citizens fought and died for out of the Constitution altogether.
It takes courage to say that our Constitution means what it says, because that meaning has consequences for the powerful. Over the last two election cycles, many Americans of both parties have chosen courage—to vote, to count votes, to improve our voting system, and to hold those who sought to disrupt democracy accountable.
This courage, beginning with our Founders who formed a government, where nearly 250 years later, six citizens could have their day in court against a former president, is what our democracy requires to endure. We need to expect each other to be courageous and celebrate acts of courage big and small. And we must not let the cowardice of our leaders—elected or appointed—take that courage from us.
Our clients, six brave Colorado voters, sued to disqualify Trump from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection. That suit, though ultimately unsuccessful, showed at once the promise of our democracy and the courage needed to sustain it.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not say who can enforce its prohibition on oath-taking insurrectionists holding office again. One way to read that constitutional silence is that many people can enforce it. Another way to read it is that almost no one can. Similar gaps and voids occur throughout our Constitution—expected in a document written a long time ago by those who hoped it would endure in a changing world with changing challenges.
These gaps and voids require the courage of Americans to fill them. We must know the Constitution’s promises—freedom of speech, equal protection—and must enforce them: to demand that rights have remedies, to insist that no one is above the law.
We saw that courage firsthand in our case. Our clients—including lifelong Republican Norma Anderson—bravely raised their hands to challenge Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. They faced notoriety and danger in doing so. But they believed that our Constitution, as amended by Section 3, was meant to protect our democracy from those who sought to overthrow it and believed that our democracy faced an immediate danger in the reelection of an insurrectionist.
Our trial judge—who did not choose this case—guided the case through trial quickly. In so doing, she navigated an uncommon process and gave Trump extensive process. Colorado’s Supreme Court chose to review the opinion, hearing argument and deciding the case in less than a month. All Colorado judges involved in the case acted with courage to decide a hard case that needed resolution. They did not see the procedural gaps in Section 3 as a loophole to escape a difficult decision. They did not shrink from duty, invent reasons why they should not hear the case, or claim that ordinary citizens could not sue a former president. And whether they agreed or disagreed with our position, all our state judges courageously did their best to get an important case right.
The courage displayed by these Colorado voters and judges honored the courage and sacrifice of our fellow Americans in the long fight for the Fourteenth Amendment and the important protections in Section 3. From our founding, many fought to expand voting to Black Americans and women. After over a million Americans died in the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments expanded the promise of our Constitution and equipped our democracy with new protections against those who would seek to subvert it. But these bulwarks fell far short because of broad resistance, violence, and concerted action by all branches of the federal government to undercut these constitutional protections. But Americans did not give up, and after decades of fighting, the courage of many led to a Fourteenth Amendment with rights in reality and not just on paper through the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
The justices at the United States Supreme Court took a different path, defined by cowardice, not courage. At argument, it was clear that they, unlike their Colorado counterparts, did not want to decide the case. And so the Court invented a reason—not pressed by any party—to avoid the merits. Our case certainly presented hard questions that thoughtful people could disagree on. But the Court used a gap to create a loophole, and in so doing read a right that our fellow citizens fought and died for out of the Constitution altogether.
It takes courage to say that our Constitution means what it says, because that meaning has consequences for the powerful. Over the last two election cycles, many Americans of both parties have chosen courage—to vote, to count votes, to improve our voting system, and to hold those who sought to disrupt democracy accountable.
This courage, beginning with our Founders who formed a government, where nearly 250 years later, six citizens could have their day in court against a former president, is what our democracy requires to endure. We need to expect each other to be courageous and celebrate acts of courage big and small. And we must not let the cowardice of our leaders—elected or appointed—take that courage from us.
About the Author
Eric Olson
Eric Olson is a co-founder and partner at Olson Grimsley. Previously, he served as the Solicitor General of Colorado, where he was lead counsel on five merits cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, and chair of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, District Court Judge John Heyburn in Kentucky. He is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, a Member of the American Law Institute, and a Board Member of the Heyburn Initiative for Excellence in the Federal Judiciary.
About the Author
Eric Olson
Eric Olson is a co-founder and partner at Olson Grimsley. Previously, he served as the Solicitor General of Colorado, where he was lead counsel on five merits cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, and chair of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, District Court Judge John Heyburn in Kentucky. He is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, a Member of the American Law Institute, and a Board Member of the Heyburn Initiative for Excellence in the Federal Judiciary.
About the Author
Eric Olson
Eric Olson is a co-founder and partner at Olson Grimsley. Previously, he served as the Solicitor General of Colorado, where he was lead counsel on five merits cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, and chair of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, District Court Judge John Heyburn in Kentucky. He is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, a Member of the American Law Institute, and a Board Member of the Heyburn Initiative for Excellence in the Federal Judiciary.
About the Author
Eric Olson
Eric Olson is a co-founder and partner at Olson Grimsley. Previously, he served as the Solicitor General of Colorado, where he was lead counsel on five merits cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, and chair of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, District Court Judge John Heyburn in Kentucky. He is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, a Member of the American Law Institute, and a Board Member of the Heyburn Initiative for Excellence in the Federal Judiciary.
About the Author
Eric Olson
Eric Olson is a co-founder and partner at Olson Grimsley. Previously, he served as the Solicitor General of Colorado, where he was lead counsel on five merits cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, and chair of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, District Court Judge John Heyburn in Kentucky. He is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, a Member of the American Law Institute, and a Board Member of the Heyburn Initiative for Excellence in the Federal Judiciary.
About the Author
Eric Olson
Eric Olson is a co-founder and partner at Olson Grimsley. Previously, he served as the Solicitor General of Colorado, where he was lead counsel on five merits cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, and chair of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, District Court Judge John Heyburn in Kentucky. He is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, a Member of the American Law Institute, and a Board Member of the Heyburn Initiative for Excellence in the Federal Judiciary.
More viewpoints in
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 11, 2025
Courage
Eric Olson
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 11, 2025
Courage
Eric Olson
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 11, 2025
Courage
Eric Olson
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 8, 2025
Why Conservatives Must Defend Liberal Democracy
Gregg Nunziata
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 8, 2025
Why Conservatives Must Defend Liberal Democracy
Gregg Nunziata
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 8, 2025
Why Conservatives Must Defend Liberal Democracy
Gregg Nunziata
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 5, 2025
A Danger to the Nations of the World
Aziz Rana
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 5, 2025
A Danger to the Nations of the World
Aziz Rana
Congress, The President & The Courts
Dec 5, 2025
A Danger to the Nations of the World
Aziz Rana
Congress, The President & The Courts