Colorado voters were ready for this outcomepublished at 15:45 Greenwich Mean Time 4 March

15:45 GMT 4 March

Emma Vardy
Reporting from Colorado

This won’t come as a surprise to many voters in Colorado.

Many here expected the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado’s ruling, and in fact it will be welcomed by some voters on both sides of the political divide.

At an ice hockey game in Denver, several ardent anti-Trump voters tell us that despite despising what he stands for, they still don’t believe people should be denied the right to vote for him if they choose to.

“I think we kick ourselves in the booty by taking someone off the ballot, why force someone off a ballot,” shouts one woman in between cheers for the hockey.

“I’m not a Trump fan, but the game still has to be fair. And if you win when it’s not fair, then you haven’t won.”

Sam Cabral
US reporter

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - who represent the Supreme Court's liberal minority - agreed that Colorado or any other state cannot unilaterally keep Donald Trump off the ballot.

"Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case."

But they argue that Tuesday's ruling seeks to "decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and [Trump] from future controversy" by announcing "that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation".

"In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of enforcement," they write.

"We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment."

Sam Cabral
US reporter

Though the court's ruling is unanimous, the justices do not all agree on the way in which Section 3 of the 14th Amendment works and can be enforced.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins her colleagues in the final decision, writing: "I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that."

But she makes clear that she is not on board with the question of "whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced".

"In my judgment, 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," writes the Trump appointee in her brief opinion.

"For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity."

Matt Murphy
US reporter

In their ruling, the nine justices appear to have ignored one element of Donald Trump's case: that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency.

In his filing, Trump claimed that as the presidency was not listed among the "officers" of the United States set out in Section 3, the 14th Amendment could not be applied against him.

Those filing against Trump had argued that the presidency is listed as an "officer" around 20 other times throughout the constitution.

While the ruling acknowledges that the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed with this argument in December, the justices avoided issuing a ruling on it themselves.

Image source, Getty Images

Donald Trump has just responded to the Supreme Court ruling that Colorado cannot disqualify him from its Republican presidential primary.

"BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!", Trump posted on Truth Social.

Moments later, the former president sent out a fundraising email urging supporters to donate to his campaign.

"The unhinged Democrat plan to ERASE MY NAME crashed & burned, but our fight to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN is far from over," the email read.

We're combing through the text of the Supreme Court's decision, which says that it's Congress, rather than individual states, that has the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Section 3 bars federal, state and military officials who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the country from holding office again.

The justices say: "For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States."

This line in the judgement reflects earlier scepticism around whether individual states should have the power to enforce federal provisions.

Trump’s presidential campaign continues unobstructedpublished at 15:17 Greenwich Mean Time 4 March

15:17 GMT 4 March

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

The Supreme Court has slammed the door on Colorado’s effort to remove Donald Trump from its primary ballot – and on every other state that has made, or is considering, efforts.

The decision on whether to strike the former president from the ballot under post-Civil War language in the 14th Amendment rests solely with Congress, the court held.

And that’s where the court’s 6-3 ideological divide rears its head once again. The three liberal justices on the court, while agreeing that Colorado went too far, wanted to leave the door open for other national efforts to consider whether Trump is eligible to run.

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes, quoting a dissent in Bush v Gore, the last big election case the court considered.

Instead, Trump’s presidential campaign continues unobstructed, with chances that Congress weighs in on the former president’s eligibility essentially at zero.

Image source, Reuters

The nine justices of the Supreme Court have made a unanimous ruling here.

And their ruling applies to the 14th Amendment push nationwide, impacting similar rulings in Maine and Illinois.

The case, they write, raises the question whether 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."

• You can read their full ruling here, external.

The US Supreme Court has just struck down Colorado's move to bar Donald Trump from its presidential primary.

Colorado’s top court removed the former president from its ballot in December, citing the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists running for office.

But Supreme Court justices were sceptical of the move at a hearing on 8 February, and accused the state of overstepping its authority.

And today they decided Trump will remain on the ballot.

It means Trump can run in the primary tomorrow, a day on which he could all but seal the Republican nomination.

Colorado will vote alongside 15 other states in a marathon contest dubbed Super Tuesday. The 77-year-old is widely expected to sweep the board and defeat his sole remaining opponent, his former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.

Stay with us as we unpack this breaking news.

Sam Cabral
US reporter

Image source, Getty Images

The Supreme Court is making its ruling just in time, given that the official date for Colorado's presidential primary is tomorrow.

But much of the state has already voted - because it is one of eight states that allows all of its elections to be conducted by mail.

More than four million Coloradans - Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters - began receiving their primary ballots by mail in early February.

And more than 800,000 voters have already returned their ballots, according to the state's elections chief, Secretary of State Jena Griswold, on 1 March.

Remaining voters who wish to participate in the primary have until 19:00 local time tomorrow to either drop off their ballots at an official drop box location or voting centre, or vote in person at a polling centre.

If the Supreme Court rules that Donald Trump is ineligible to run for president, the votes of those who have cast their ballots for him will simply not count tomorrow (and very likely in the rest of this race) - which critics say is an unfair way to disenfranchise US voters.

On 19 December, the Colorado Supreme Court said it found "clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection".

It said Donald Trump must be removed from its Republican primary ballot because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, external, which disqualifies some people who engage in "insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office.

It was the first time Section 3 had been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.

The lengthy 213-page ruling, external said Trump's actions in the build-up to 6 January 2021 did constitute insurrection.

Then, later that month, Maine also blocked Trump from its ballot. Unlike in Colorado, where the top court ruled, in Maine it was decided by the top electoral official because of a quirk in its constitution.

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, issued a 34-page ruling that said Trump must be removed from its Republican primary ballot because of Section 3.

Bellows, an elected official, was accused of making a politically motivated decision by the Trump campaign. She denied this and said it was "thorough and based on the rule of law".

Last Wednesday, a judge in Illinois also barred Trump from the ballot there, overruling a previous decision by the state's board of elections that the Republican was eligible for the ballot.

But Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter placed an immediate hold on her ruling to allow time for Trump to appeal, which he quickly did the same day.

The US Supreme Court's decision is expected to impact all three rulings.

This case hinges on how justices interpret a key amendmentpublished at 14:42 Greenwich Mean Time 4 March

14:42 GMT 4 March

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

The court’s decision in this case will likely turn on how a majority of the justices interpret the provision of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that bans federal officials who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the government from holding public office.

The justices will have to determine if this provision applies to US presidents or only members of Congress and other lower-level federal "officers of the United States".

They may look at how the term is used elsewhere in the Constitution, as well as what the framers of the 14th Amendment may have been thinking when they devised the language.

The Colorado trial court dismissed the case on these grounds, before it was reversed by the state’s Supreme Court.

The justices may also have to decide whether the language of the amendment is "self-executing" - that is, whether it was not necessary for Congress to pass accompanying legislation to give the amendment teeth.

Since no such law was enacted, Trump’s lawyers have contended that the amendment’s ban is unenforceable.

These are the two most prominent lines of argument that could give the Supreme Court an alluring off-ramp in this case, essentially allowing it to throw out Colorado’s ruling on more technical grounds.

Image source, Getty Images

On the day of the US Capitol riot in 2020, supporters of Donald Trump stormed Congress as lawmakers were certifying Joe Biden's election victory.

That day, the then-president held a rally outside the White House where he repeated false claims of mass election fraud as he urged protesters to "fight like hell", but also to march "peacefully" to the Capitol.

The Colorado Supreme Court says Donald Trump's involvement that day amounts to insurrection. And because of that, they said he was disqualified from being on the ballot.

But Trump's lawyers argued that:

1. It was not an insurrection
2. Even if it was, Trump did not "engage" in it

So what is an insurrection? Broadly speaking, it means when violence is used by an organised group to rebel or revolt against the government., external

And while many people label 6 January as an insurrection, it's a rare and difficult charge to prove.

That's why the harshest jail terms from that day have been for charges of seditious conspiracy (which is more about plotting incitement), and not insurrection.

Last month the Supreme Court appeared sceptical of Colorado's move to bar Donald Trump from the state's presidential primary.

At a hearing on 8 February, justices grilled the attorney defending the move about its constitutionality, its real-world consequences and defining "insurrection".

Chief Justice John Roberts observed that if the court upheld the Colorado ruling it could unleash chaos on the US political system by granting states the unilateral power to strike candidates from the ballot.

"It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That's a pretty daunting consequence," he said.

And Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree, noting: "I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States."

Enforcing the 14th amendment would have "to be federal, national means," she suggested.

Welcome to our live coverage of the US Supreme Court, which could soon rule if US states can disqualify Donald Trump from appearing on election ballots.

It all started when Colorado’s top court moved to block the former president from its presidential primary, saying Trump was ineligible because of his role in the 6 January Capitol riot.

The ruling cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which bars federal, state and military officials who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the country from holding office again.

Trump's legal team appealed that decision and the Supreme Court heard arguments for each side of the case on 8 February.

Whatever the Supreme Court justices decide will apply nation-wide.

The Supreme Court will publish various opinions today, which could include their decision on Colorado’s ban. Stay with us.