Trump Wins Colorado Ballot Disqualification Case at US Supreme Court

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally, March 2, 2024, in Richmond, Va. (AP)
Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally, March 2, 2024, in Richmond, Va. (AP)
TT

Trump Wins Colorado Ballot Disqualification Case at US Supreme Court

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally, March 2, 2024, in Richmond, Va. (AP)
Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally, March 2, 2024, in Richmond, Va. (AP)

The US Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a major victory on Monday, barring states from disqualifying candidates for federal office under a constitutional provision involving insurrection and reversing Colorado's exclusion of him from its ballot.

The justices unanimously overturned a Dec. 19 decision by Colorado's top court to kick the former president off the state's Tuesday Republican primary ballot after finding that the US Constitution's 14th Amendment disqualified him from again holding public office. The Colorado court had found that Trump took part in an insurrection for inciting and supporting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by his supporters.

But four of the nine justices, including the court's three liberal members, faulted the rest of the court for announcing rules limiting how the constitutional provision may be enforced in the future.

Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 US election. His only remaining rival for his party's nomination is former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

The ruling was issued on the eve of Super Tuesday, the day in the US presidential primary cycle when the most states hold party nominating contests.

The Supreme Court's decision came five days after it agreed to decide Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution on charges related to trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden. The court acted in a speedier manner in deciding the ballot disqualification issue, benefiting Trump, than it has in resolving the immunity question. Delays in deciding the immunity issue could help Trump by delaying his criminal trial.

The 14th Amendment's Section 3 bars from office any "officer of the United States" who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency," the unsigned opinion for the court stated.

The justices found that only Congress can enforce the provision against federal officeholders and candidates.

"BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!," Trump wrote on his social media platform immediately after the ruling.

Trump was also barred from the ballot in Maine and Illinois based on the 14th Amendment, but those decisions were put on hold pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the Colorado case.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold expressed disappointment at the ruling "stripping states of the authority" to enforce the disqualification clause.

"Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot," she wrote in a social media post.

‘Momentous and difficult issues’

Though the justices unanimously agreed with the result, the three liberal justices, as well as conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, said the court's opinion decided more than what was necessary to resolve the case by specifying that Section 3 can be enforced only through federal legislation.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson objected to the majority's "gratuitous" decision to announce rules limiting the way Section 3 can be enforced in the future.

"Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming president," the liberal justices said. "Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision."

In a concurring opinion, Barrett wrote that "this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up," Barrett wrote.

"For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," Barrett added.

Trump's eligibility had been challenged in court by a group of six voters in Colorado - four Republicans and two independents - who portrayed him as a threat to American democracy and sought to hold him accountable for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by his supporters.

The plaintiffs were backed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group.

CREW President Noah Bookbinder emphasized that while the court's ruling allows Trump back on the ballot, it did not directly address the Colorado Supreme Court's finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.

"The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so," Bookbinder said, adding that, "The Supreme Court removed an enforcement mechanism, and in letting Trump back on the ballot, they failed to meet the moment."

As lawsuits seeking to disqualify Trump cropped up across the country, it was important for his candidacy to clear any hurdles to appear on the ballot in all 50 states.

The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three Trump appointees. Not since ruling in the landmark case Bush v. Gore, which handed the disputed 2000 US election to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, has the court played such a central role in a presidential race.

The justices in the immunity case in December declined a bid to speed up resolution of the matter before a lower court had weighed in, then last week agreed to take up the matter after lower courts had ruled - setting arguments to take place in late April, a much longer timeline.

Capitol attack

In a bid to prevent Congress from certifying Biden's 2020 election victory, Trump supporters attacked police, broke through barricades and swarmed the Capitol. Trump gave an incendiary speech to supporters beforehand, repeating his false claims of widespread voting fraud and telling them to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell." He then for hours rebuffed requests that he urge the mob to stop.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 in which seceding Southern states that allowed the practice of slavery rebelled against the US government.

In ruling against Trump, Colorado's top court cited the "general atmosphere of political violence that President Trump created" and that he aided "the insurrectionists' common unlawful purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power in this country."

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Feb. 8. Trump's lawyer argued that he is not subject to the disqualification language because a president is not an "officer of the United States," that the provision cannot be enforced by courts absent congressional legislation, and that what occurred on Jan. 6 was shameful, criminal and violent but not an insurrection.



Georgia Arrests Two Foreigners Trying to Purchase Uranium

FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
TT

Georgia Arrests Two Foreigners Trying to Purchase Uranium

FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

Georgia has ‌detained two people who attempted to purchase $3 million worth of uranium and a cache of a radioactive isotope found in nuclear weapons testing programs, the national security service said on Thursday.

Two foreign nationals from unspecified countries were arrested in the city of Kutaisi, the State Security Service said in a statement.

"They were planning to ‌illegally purchase ‌nuclear material uranium and radioactive ‌substance ⁠Cesium 137 for $3 ⁠million and illegally transport it to the territory of another country," Reuters quoted it as saying.

It said other foreigners had been arriving in Georgia in recent weeks with the aim of purchasing and transporting the nuclear and ⁠radioactive materials, without elaborating further.

The ‌statement did ‌not specify the quantity of materials the individuals were ‌attempting to procure. There were ‌no details on the substances' origin or potential destination.

Cesium 137 is a radioactive isotope present primarily in the aftermath of nuclear weapons testing ‌and nuclear power plant accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster in ⁠then-Soviet ⁠Ukraine in 1986.

The security of nuclear materials was one of the biggest concerns after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, of which Georgia was part. There have been several serious incidents involving the illicit trade in nuclear materials in Georgia over recent decades.

Most recently, three Chinese citizens were arrested in the capital Tbilisi for attempting to purchase two kilograms of "nuclear material" uranium.


Former South Korean President Yoon Receives Life Sentence for Imposing Martial Law

FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
TT

Former South Korean President Yoon Receives Life Sentence for Imposing Martial Law

FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life in prison for his brief imposition of martial law in a dramatic culmination to the country’s biggest political crisis in decades.

Yoon was ousted from office after a baffling attempt to overcome an opposition-controlled legislature by declaring martial law and sending troops to surround the National Assembly on Dec. 3, 2024, The Associated Press said.

Judge Jee Kui-youn of the Seoul Central District Court said he found Yoon guilty of rebellion for mobilizing military and police forces in an illegal attempt to seize the liberal-led Assembly, arrest politicians and establish unchecked power for a “considerable” time.

Martial law crisis recalled dictatorial past Yoon’s martial law imposition, the first of its kind in more than four decades, harkened back to South Korea’s past military-backed governments when authorities occasionally proclaimed emergency decrees that allowed them to station soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or at public places such as schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations.

As lawmakers rushed to the National Assembly, Yoon’s martial law command issued a proclamation declaring sweeping powers, including suspending political activities, controlling the media and publications, and allowing arrests without warrants.

The decree lasted about six hours before being lifted after a quorum of lawmakers managed to break through a military blockade and unanimously voted to lift the measure.

Yoon was suspended from office on Dec. 14, 2024, after being impeached by lawmakers and was formally removed by the Constitutional Court in April 2025. He has been under arrest since last July while facing multiple criminal trials, with the rebellion charge carrying the most severe punishment.

Yoon's lawyers reject conviction Yoon Kap-keun, one of the former president’s lawyers, accused Jee of issuing a “predetermined verdict” based solely on prosecutors’ arguments and said the “rule of law” had collapsed. He said he would discuss whether to appeal with his client and the rest of the legal team.

Yoon Suk Yeol told the court the martial law decree was only meant to raise public awareness of how the liberals were paralyzing state affairs, and that he was prepared to respect lawmakers if they voted against the measure.

Prosecutors said it was clear Yoon was attempting to disable the legislature and prevent lawmakers from lifting the measure through voting, actions that exceeded his constitutional authority even under martial law.

In announcing Yoon and Kim’s verdicts, Jee said the decision to send troops to the National Assembly was key to his determination that the imposition of martial law amounted to rebellion.

“This court finds that the purpose of (Yoon’s) actions was to send troops to the National Assembly, block the Assembly building and arrest key figures, including the National Assembly speaker and the leaders of both the ruling and opposition parties, in order to prevent lawmakers from gathering to deliberate or vote,” Jee said. “It’s sufficiently established that he intended to obstruct or paralyze the Assembly’s activities so that it would be unable to properly perform its functions for a considerable period of time.”

Protesters rally outside court

As Yoon arrived in court, hundreds of police officers watched closely as Yoon supporters rallied outside a judicial complex, their cries rising as the prison bus transporting him drove past. Yoon’s critics gathered nearby, demanding the death penalty.

There were no immediate reports of major clashes following the verdict.

A special prosecutor had demanded the death penalty for Yoon Suk Yeol, saying his actions posed a threat to the country’s democracy and deserved the most serious punishment available, but most analysts expected a life sentence since the poorly-planned power grab did not result in casualties.

South Korea has not executed a death row inmate since 1997, in what is widely seen as a de facto moratorium on capital punishment amid calls for its abolition.

Other officials sentenced for enforcing martial law

The court also convicted and sentenced several former military and police officials involved in enforcing Yoon’s martial law decree, including ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who received a 30-year jail term for his central role in planning the measure and mobilizing the military.

Last month, Yoon was sentenced to five years in prison for resisting arrest, fabricating the martial law proclamation and sidestepping a legally mandated full Cabinet meeting before declaring the measure.

The Seoul Central Court has also convicted two members of Yoon’s Cabinet in other cases. That includes Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who received a 23-year prison sentence for attempting to legitimize the decree by forcing it through a Cabinet Council meeting, falsifying records and lying under oath. Han has appealed the verdict.

Yoon is the first former South Korean president to receive a life sentence since former military dictator Chun Doo-hwan, who was sentenced to death in 1996 for his 1979 coup, a bloody 1980 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Gwangju that left more than 200 people dead or missing, and corruption.

The Supreme Court later reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, and he was released in late 1997 under a special presidential pardon. He died in 2021.


UK Condemns 10-year Sentence for British Couple in Iran

(FILES) A handout photograph released in London on August 4, 2025 by the family of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, shows Craig and Lindsay at Naqsh-e Jahan Square, or Shah Square, with the Shah Mosque in the background, in Isfahan, Iran, at an undated time. (Photo by FAMILY HANDOUT / AFP)
(FILES) A handout photograph released in London on August 4, 2025 by the family of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, shows Craig and Lindsay at Naqsh-e Jahan Square, or Shah Square, with the Shah Mosque in the background, in Isfahan, Iran, at an undated time. (Photo by FAMILY HANDOUT / AFP)
TT

UK Condemns 10-year Sentence for British Couple in Iran

(FILES) A handout photograph released in London on August 4, 2025 by the family of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, shows Craig and Lindsay at Naqsh-e Jahan Square, or Shah Square, with the Shah Mosque in the background, in Isfahan, Iran, at an undated time. (Photo by FAMILY HANDOUT / AFP)
(FILES) A handout photograph released in London on August 4, 2025 by the family of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, shows Craig and Lindsay at Naqsh-e Jahan Square, or Shah Square, with the Shah Mosque in the background, in Isfahan, Iran, at an undated time. (Photo by FAMILY HANDOUT / AFP)

British foreign minister Yvette Cooper on Thursday condemned as "totally unjustifiable" the 10-year sentence given to a British couple in Iran for spying, saying the government would continue to press for their release.

Craig and Lindsay Foreman had been charged with espionage after Iran accused them of gathering information in several parts of the country.

"We will pursue this case relentlessly with the Iranian government until we see ‌Craig and Lindsay ‌Foreman safely returned to the UK and reunited with ‌their ⁠family," Reuters quoted Cooper as saying in ⁠a statement.

The Foremans were arrested on January 3 of last year while travelling through Iran on a global motorcycle journey. Iranian state media announced their detention the following month over espionage charges and they have now been held for more than 13 months.

Joe Bennett, Lindsay's son, said in a separate statement the couple had appeared at a three-hour trial ⁠on October 27, in which they were not allowed to ‌present a defense.

"We have seen no ‌evidence to support the charge of espionage," he said, adding that the family ‌was deeply concerned about the couple's welfare and the lack of transparency ‌in the judicial process.

Bennett called on the British government to "act decisively and use every available avenue" to secure their release.

The Iranian embassy in London did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the sentencing.

According to a family ‌statement, the couple have been held for extended periods without being able to communicate. They have had limited or ⁠delayed access ⁠to legal representation, periods of solitary confinement and delays in receiving funds for basic necessities. They also reported disrupted or cancelled consular visits.

Cooper, whose office did not comment on the disruption, said they would continue to provide consular assistance.

Lindsay Foreman has been held in the women's section of Tehran's Evin Prison, while her husband Craig has been held in its political wing.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have in recent years detained foreign and dual nationals, typically on espionage or national security charges.

Human rights organizations say the authorities use such arrests as leverage in disputes with other countries, a practice they describe as part of a broader pattern of politically motivated detentions. Tehran has rejected those accusations and said the cases involved legitimate security concerns.