A Denver judge on Wednesday rejected former President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to disqualify him from the 2024 ballot, concluding that a recent Colorado law enacted to protect free speech did not apply.

Six Republican and unaffiliated voters filed suit against Secretary of State Jena Griswold to force her to block Trump from appearing on the ballot for next year’s presidential election. The plaintiffs based their claim on allegations that Trump engaged in an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and is disqualified from holding federal office under the 14th Amendment.

Trump sought to dismiss the lawsuit on various grounds, including Colorado’s 2019 “anti-SLAPP” law, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” The legislature enacted the law to provide a mechanism to quickly dispose of litigation that implicates a person’s First Amendment rights – specifically, the rights to free speech and to petition the government.

“All of petitioners’ claims against President Trump are premised on speech,” wrote Trump’s lawyers, among whom is former Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler. “President’s Trumps (sic) speech is protected by the First Amendment and does not constitute incitement to violence or illegal action, let alone an insurrection or rebellion.”

But in an Oct. 11 order, District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss, finding Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law did not apply to the case. Specifically, the legislature exempted lawsuits brought to enforce the rights of the general public.

“The question before the court,” she wrote, “is simple: would the preclusion of a constitutionally incapable candidate from seeking public office enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit on the public? The court, again, has little trouble finding that it would.”

Wallace also observed the anti-SLAPP law was fundamentally incompatible with the case. If she decided Trump’s anti-SLAPP motion, the parties could appeal to the Court of Appeals and delay the question of Trump’s eligibility for next year’s ballot. Under ballot access procedures, however, Wallace’s decision on the disqualification issue will be immediately appealable to the state Supreme Court.

A hearing on the underlying claim is scheduled to begin on Oct. 30.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, helped ensure civil rights for formerly enslaved people. But it also was used to prevent Confederate officials from becoming members of Congress after the Civil War and taking over the government against which they had just rebelled. 

Although the lawsuit against a presidential candidate is extraordinary, the disqualification provision was used last year to bar a New Mexico county commissioner from office who entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, when Trump supporters sought to halt the count of Electoral College votes.

The plaintiffs originally filed suit against both Griswold and Trump, but the only claim that remains is the one seeking to force Griswold to disqualify Trump from appearing on the ballot. In responding to Trump’s anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiffs argued Trump had no grounds to dismiss a claim made against Griswold alone.

Even if he could make such a request, the plaintiffs believed the protection of public interest lawsuits shielded theirs from dismissal.

“Ensuring that those who the Constitution forbids from holding office do not appear on the ballot is an important public policy goal,” wrote a collection of prominent Democratic and Republican attorneys representing the plaintiffs. “So too is preventing the disenfranchisement of Colorado voters that would result if the Secretary of State allowed an ineligible candidate on the ballot or if the state’s voters nominated or elected a candidate who is constitutionally barred from assuming office.”

Wallace agreed, noting it “goes without saying” that it is in the public interest to ensure only qualified candidates appear on the ballot.

The case is Anderson et al. v. Griswold.