Today is Dec. 20, 2023, and here’s what you need to know:

The Colorado Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of ordering Donald Trump removed from the 2024 presidential ballot on Tuesday, finding him constitutionally ineligible to hold future office.

Trump’s campaign said it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Dec. 19, unsigned opinion was the first by any state supreme court to address head-on the substantive arguments of Trump’s – or any presidential candidate’s – eligibility, given the allegations that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach,” the opinion from the four-justice majority read.

The majority noted it had “little difficulty” concluding there was sufficient evidence to deem the deadly mob attack of Jan. 6 an insurrection, and that Trump’s own actions to stop the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory were directly linked to the insurrection.

Three justices dissented: Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright and Justices Carlos A. Samour Jr. and Maria E. Berkenkotter. Each took issue with the procedures of the eligibility challenge and did not dispute the substantive findings about whether Trump’s actions amounted to insurrectionist, disqualifying conduct.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot drew sharply polarized reactions in the state on Tuesday, with Trump’s allies blasting the decision as “flawed” and “undemocratic,” while his foes mostly applauded the court for finding that Trump is ineligible under the Constitution.

In a 4-3 decision, Colorado justices ruled that a Civil War-era constitutional provision barring certain officials who “engaged in insurrection” from holding federal office applies to Trump for attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021.

The state court stayed its ruling until Jan. 4, 2024 – one day before Colorado election officials are required to certify the March 5 presidential primary ballot – to allow for Trump’s certain appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Colorado Republican Party, which intervened in the Colorado lawsuit on Trump’s side, cheered the prospect of a reversal by the high court.

“Thank God the U.S. Supreme Court will get the final say against the out-of-control radicals in charge of Colorado who would rather spit on our Constitution than let the people decide which candidates should represent them in a free and fair election,” the state GOP said in a statement.

A state entity whose members were appointed by Gov. Jared Polis on Tuesday rejected a county’s proposal to offer property tax relief – despite the governor specifically asking local governments to step up and do their part in reducing Coloradans’ tax burden.

Polis told reporters he is disappointed in the state board of equalization’s decision to deny the tax relief that Douglas County sought for its taxpayers.

Douglas County officials were furious at the decision, and one likened it to the Grinch stealing Christmas.

After last month’s special session concluded, Polis urged counties and other districts that assess property taxes to offer Coloradans property tax relief.

A handful of counties and other districts responded. Colorado Mountain College, and Larimer and Summit counties temporarily reduced their mill levy rates to provide that relief.

A federal judge on Monday heard arguments about whether a new Colorado law regulating the affordability of EpiPens and their generic equivalents should be partially blocked because it potentially violates the U.S. Constitution.

In June, Gov. Jared Polis signed a Democratic-backed measure aimed at countering the rising prices of epinephrine auto-injectors, which can save the lives of people undergoing a severe allergic reaction. House Bill 1002 contained two major requirements beginning on Jan. 1, 2024: Capping out-of-pocket costs for insured consumers to $60 for a two-pack of the auto-injectors, and requiring manufacturers to reimburse or resupply pharmacies with the price-controlled devices in some instances.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., which gained approval in 2018 to market the first generic version of the EpiPen, took no issue with the $60 cap for customers, acknowledging Colorado was within its rights to impose a price control through insurance coverage. However, it argued the reimburse-or-resupply program violated its constitutional rights.

Specifically, Teva believes the requirement to effectively provide pharmacies with free product violates the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment, which forbids the government from taking private property “for public use, without just compensation.”

Colorado “can impose a tax on the sale of EpiPens and then use that tax in a dedicated fund for people who are uninsured,” attorney Jay P. Lefkowitz argued in court. “They can simply impose a price cap and see what the market forces do. They can subsidize it more broadly in other ways. I guess the state could even decide it wants to enter the generic business and develop its own EpiPen.”