Speaking to reporters outside of his Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump has just called the Supreme Court hearing "a very beautiful process”, adding that he hopes democracy will continue.

He questioned whether 6 January was an insurrection - and said his words at the time were "very heart-warming statements" and telling people to go home.

He went on to claim the Democratic Party was weaponising politics, and brought up the various legal cases against him.

"It’s election interference,” Trump claims.

He told the press gaggle that he hopes his argument in court today was "well received”.

The former president also brought up his polling performance, and went on to attack President Joe Biden for what Trump says are "open borders" and crime.

"They loved four years of us," Trump said.

Francesca Gillett
Live reporter, Washington DC

So that's it - we've heard the arguments in Donald Trump's legal fight to stay on the ballot in the US presidential election race and we're closing our live coverage now. Here's what you need to know:

The background: Last year Colorado's top court disqualified Trump from its presidential election ballot, citing an amendment clause in the US Constitution which bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office.

Trump - who's the front-runner to be the Republican candidate - appealed the ruling, calling it "election interference".

What happened today: We heard from Trump's team first. Their arguments centred on the wording of US Constitution clause, which they said doesn't apply to him. More on the technical detail of those arguments here.

They then touched on the thornier question in this case - whether Trump actually engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021. Colorado had ruled that he had. Trump's lawyer said no, because what happened on 6 January was "a riot, not an insurrection".

Colorado's lawyers defended the state's ruling, saying the amendment in this case acts as a "safety valve" for democracy in the US. They said states have the power to use the amendment.

How might the justices rule? We don't know. The justices seemed sceptical of Colorado's arguments. As my colleague who was at court, Sam Cabral, writes, the court may seem poised to support Trump - but we have to wait and see.

Our full report from today's court case is here.

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

The spectre of another decisive election case, Bush vs Gore, hung heavily over these proceedings. In that blockbuster 2000 case, the Supreme Court oversaw a dispute between the two major party candidates, Republican George W Bush and Democrat Al Gore, over disputed ballots in the crucial state of Florida.

The court sided with Bush and as a result, the 2000 election went in his favour. It was the moment that the American public began to perceive the US Supreme Court as politicised, said Tom Ginsburg, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

It’s a moment that was likely on the justice’s minds nearly a quarter of a century later, as they heard a case that could seriously sway another US presidential election.

“Clearly the court is haunted by the ghost of Bush vs Gore. It doesn’t want to be put into the position of deciding who will be president,” Ginsburg told me. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative who is mindful of the court’s image “no doubt he is thinking ahead to the consequences of this decision in November.”

“Arguably, siding with the Colorado plaintiffs would increase the likelihood of a constitutional crisis down the road,” Ginsburg said.

Ruling for the Colorado plaintiffs could open the door to states being left up to decide whether Trump should be on their ballots.

“If Trump is not on the ballot in some states but wins anyway, we might be in the position of having the Court in another Bush vs Gore moment.”

Cases at the Supreme Court normally take months, and the biggest decisions typically get issued at the end of term in June.

But the Supreme Court put this case on a fast track. They have not said exactly when they will rule, but it could be as soon a few days or weeks.

There is a looming deadline adding pressure to this case.

Colorado's primary is 5 March, less than a month away. The state will start sending out mail ballots to voters on 12 February - next Monday.

Trump's name will be on the ballot regardless of the ruling because of printing and election deadlines, but the state needs to know whether to count those votes.

The Colorado plaintiffs had asked the court to rule by the day before ballots are distributed, 11 February, so voters would know if their choice counts.

That may be a bit fast for the court, but they could meet the 5 March deadline.

That day is known as Super Tuesday, when Colorado and 14 other states hold primaries. Maine, which also kicked Trump off the ballot and is waiting for this Supreme Court decision, votes that day too.

This final decision could have huge ramifications on Trump’s campaign to become the Republican presidential nominee.

John Roberts - The Chief Justice has been on the court since 2005. He's a conservative justice who notably wrote the 5-4 opinion that shot down a major challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

Clarence Thomas - On the court since 1991. The conservative once went a decade without asking a question in oral arguments - although we did hear his voice today.

Ketanji Brown Jackson - The first black woman to sit on the court when she was confirmed in 2022. The liberal justice has been criticised by some conservatives for being "soft" on criminals.

Samuel Alito - The conservative justice has been on the court since 2006. He is not overly talkative in oral arguments but his questions are sharp.

Elena Kagan - On the court since 2010, she is part of the court's minority left-leaning wing. Her writing is often easy for a layperson to understand.

Sonia Sotomayor - The court's first Hispanic justice has been on the court since 2009. The liberal justice is known for her best-selling memoir.

Neil Gorsuch - On the court since 2017, his appointment cemented the 5-4 conservative advantage.

Brett Kavanaugh - On the court since 2018, his views on abortion, environment and gun laws have been criticised by some Democrats.

Amy Coney Barrett - On the court since 2020. The conservative justice is popular with the religious right.

You can read more about the justices here.

It was a historic day at the Supreme Court as the justices entered uncharted legal waters, considering whether a Donald Trump should be struck off the 2024 presidential ballot.

While we couldn't watch inside the courtroom, there was plenty happening outside of the courtroom.

Image source, Getty Images

Image source, EPA

Image source, Getty Images

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

Image source, EPA

The plaintiffs' side is remaining upbeat despite the Supreme Court justices' broad scepticism of their arguments today.

"We stand here today not just as voters, but as defenders of the principles that define our democracy,” said Norma Anderson, the 91-year-old former Republican state legislator who first brought the case along with five others.

“Our fight to uphold the integrity of our electoral process is not about partisan politics; it’s about preserving the very ideals for which our forefathers fought," she said.

"Today, we see what it looks like when the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution fights back," Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) said in a statement after the hearing.

Crew is representing the Colorado plaintiffs along with other law firms.

Brandon Drenon
Reporting from Washington DC

Boston University constitutional law professor Robert Tsai - who was listening to the arguments - told the BBC the justices' impending decision was clear.

"Colorado's decision is toast," Tsai said.

"I think it’s hard to have listened to the oral argument and think that the court will do anything other than reverse the Colorado supreme court.

"It's just a matter of whether you have five justices backing a single rationale or you have a bunch of scattered opinions."

The argument that he said the justices seemed most attracted to was this: that Congress has the power to use Section 3 to bar federal officials from state ballots, not the states themselves.

However, Tsai conceded that support for this idea was not unanimous and that it was going to be a "pretty complicated" opinion for the Supreme Court to write.

"We won't know for a while," he said. "This might be the last ruling we see from them for a while."

More now from Donald Trump, who has been taking questions from reporters at his Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.

Trump suggested the storming of the US Capitol on 6 January was not an insurrection because there were no guns. He called the death of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by a police officer while she was breaching the Capitol, "so horrible".

Trump also suggested that his message to rioters from the Rose Garden on 6 January was "very beautiful" and "heart-warming".

In that speech, which came about two hours after the Capitol had been locked down, Trump told rioters to "go home, we love you, you're very special", and continued to falsely claim the election had been stolen.

The Republican front-runner for the 2024 election wrapped up his media appearance today by saying he is a "believer in the Supreme Court", and repeated his claim that "if a president doesn’t have immunity, he really doesn’t have a presidency".

Sam Cabral
Reporting from the Supreme Court

Jason Murray, the attorney on behalf of Colorado voters who brought the case to disqualify Donald Trump, told the Supreme Court that constitutional safeguards existed to protect America from federal candidates like Trump.

Murray alleged the former president sought to disenfranchise millions of voters and then violently invited an insurrection against the country.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was “a democratic safety valve” against Trump, he argued.

But most justices on the Supreme Court seemed troubled by the idea of a single state taking such dramatic action against the leading Republican candidate in a presidential election.

They did not appear convinced that the state of Colorado was correctly enforcing the 14th Amendment, with Chief Justice John Roberts saying the provision was meant to limit state power and expand federal power.

His colleagues Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also posed stiff questions, with the latter seemingly unimpressed by Murray’s responses.

Some have suggested this unprecedented action by Colorado should be struck down by a 9-0 ruling. That is unlikely, as the likes of Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett seem deeply sceptical of the Trump team’s skewering of the wording that underpins Section 3.

But after two hours of argument, this court’s solidly conservative majority looks set to side with Trump and keep him on the ballot.

Sam Cabral
Reporting from the Supreme Court

We've just heard from Donald Trump, now let's check in with Jena Griswold, who spoke outside the Supreme Court after arguments wrapped up.

Griswold is Colorado’s secretary of state - and she's on the side of the Colorado decision that Trump should be struck from the 2024 election ballot.

She told reporters the Trump team had essentially argued “that all insurrectionists can be on ballots”.

The former president believes he is “above the court system”, she claims.

“I don’t believe that being president is a get out of jail free card”, Griswold said, adding “Section 3 was designed to protect our country from insurrectionists”.

Speaking to reporters outside of his Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump has just called the Supreme Court hearing "a very beautiful process”, adding that he hopes democracy will continue.

He questioned whether 6 January was an insurrection - and went on to claim the Democratic Party was weaponising politics, and brought up the various legal cases against him.

"It’s election interference,” Trump claims.

He told the press gaggle that he hopes his argument in court today was "well received”.

The former president also brought up his polling performance, and went on to attack President Joe Biden for what Trump says are "open borders" and crime.

"They loved four years of us," Trump said.

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

Oral arguments are over in the historic case that challenges Trump's eligibility to be on the election ballot in Colorado.

As some legal experts predicted, the justices did not focus on the very thorny and politically fraught question of whether Trump did, in fact, engage in insurrection.

• They were much more concerned about whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment actually barred a person from serving as president if they committed insurrection, and if a state was allowed to enforce the clause
• The nine justices questioned three major players: Trump's attorney Jonathan Mitchell, and on the other side the Colorado plaintiff’s attorney Jason Murray and Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson
• Attorneys from both sides faced sharp questions about whether the term "officer of the United States" applies to the presidency. Even liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned if the clause covers the nation's highest office
• Murray, arguing for the effort to keep Trump off Colorado's ballot, faced especially sharp questions from justices across the ideological spectrum about his legal reasoning
• Justices grilled lawyers on the potential consequences of a state being allowed to make such an impactful decision, whether it required an act of Congress to give actual legal weight to the clause

Sam Cabral
Reporting from outside the Supreme Court

Dave Williams, the chair of the Colorado Republican Party, told us that the use of Section 3 against former President Trump is a “ridiculous, novel legal theory”.

Williams said that, having listened to arguments this morning, the state party believes strongly that Trump “will succeed on the merits” and get on the ballot "so that Joe Biden can be defeated".

Brandon Drenon
Reporting from Washington DC

The hearing has now ended. But we're just catching up a bit on what happened in the final minutes, when Shannon Stevenson, Colorado's solicitor general, maintained before the Supreme Court that "states have the power to enforce Section 3".

She was asked what impact that might have on candidates running in other states, and if it's something justices "should be concerned about".

Stevenson told the Supreme Court that different candidates wind up on different state ballots "every election".

"That's just a feature of our process," she said. "It's not a bug."

The justices then quizzed Stevenson on whether or not ruling in favour of Colorado could set off a political backfiring where states proceed to kick candidates off ballots more or less at-will.

Stevenson responds that the idea is not a serious threat and that institutions and electoral rules are in place to mitigate that risk.

More now on that back-and-forth earlier between Colorado's lawyer and Justice Brett Kavanaugh - again talking about that all-crucial Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

He describes Section 3 as a "democratic safety valve" which protects the US from insurrectionists.

Sam Cabral
Reporting from the Supreme Court

"Thank you counsel. The case is submitted."

And, with that, arguments have ended after roughly two hours of rigorous questioning. The court is adjourned.

Sam Cabral
Reporting from the Supreme Court

Colorado's solicitor general was up for a short and final period of questioning in this session.

Shannon Stevenson is speaking on behalf of Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who has not made a determination about Trump's eligibility for the 2024 ballot.

Griswold would like a decision made by the top court before the state's primary early next month.

Stevenson is a seasoned trial attorney, but she is clearly nervous here and her voice shakes as she speaks.

Today's Supreme Court arguments are only one part of the legal and political drama playing out in a very busy election year.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter, where our North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher will set out what you really need to know from the campaign trail, and help you see the bigger global picture.

If you're in the UK, sign up here.

And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson returns to a matter she raised earlier: that the text of the amendment lists the jobs that an insurrectionist would be barred from holding, and that president is not explicitly mentioned.

She wants lawyer Jason Murray - who is representing the people who sought to bar Trump from Colorado's ballot - to answer why he thinks the presidency is covered.

Murray responds that the authors of the clause wanted to prevent a "charismatic rebel" from rising to the office of president.

But then why wouldn't they just list the president? Jackson asks.

The omission "makes me worried that they were not focused on the president," she says.

Murray responds that some of the positions -- like US Senator or electors -- were listed because the Constitution does not define them elsewhere as "offices" of the United States, and therefore had to be specified here.

It's a very different reading of the clause than Trump's lawyers advocate.