Was the Capitol Riot an 'Insurrection,' and Did Trump 'Engage in' It?

The Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning in deciding that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from running for president seems iffy.

"It's self-evident," President Joe Biden told reporters on Wednesday. "You saw it all. He certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero."

Biden was referring to the Colorado Supreme Court's recent ruling that Donald Trump is disqualified from that state's presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was originally aimed at barring former Confederates from returning to public office after the Civil War. As relevant here, Section 3 says "no person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same."

Biden, whose reelection bid would get a big boost from Trump's disqualification, takes it for granted that the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol qualified as an "insurrection" under the 14th Amendment, and he says there is "no question" that Trump "engaged in" that insurrection. But the Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning on both of those crucial points is iffy, and I say that as someone who thought Trump richly deserved his second impeachment, which was provoked by his reckless behavior before and during the riot.

On its face, that impeachment supports the court's decision, which was joined by four of seven justices. The article of impeachment, after all, charged Trump with "incitement of insurrection" and explicitly cited Section 3. But that debatable characterization was not necessary to show that Trump was guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Trump's misconduct included his refusal to accept Biden's victory, his persistent peddling of his stolen-election fantasy, his pressure on state and federal officials to embrace that fantasy, the incendiary speech he delivered to his supporters before the riot, and his failure to intervene after a couple thousand of those supporters invaded the Capitol, interrupting the congressional ratification of the election results. All of that was more than enough to conclude that Trump had egregiously violated his oath to "faithfully execute" his office and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." It was more than enough to justify his conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors in the Senate, which would have prevented him from running for president again.

Achieving the same result under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, by contrast, does require concluding that Trump "engaged in insurrection." But in reaching that conclusion, the Colorado Supreme Court never actually defines insurrection.

"At oral argument," the opinion notes, "President Trump's counsel, while not providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of related conduct." But the court does not offer "a specific definition" either: "It suffices for us to conclude that any definition of 'insurrection' for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country."

That description suggests a level of intent and coordination that seems at odds with the chaotic reality of the Capitol riot. Some rioters were members of groups, such as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, that thought the use of force was justified to keep Trump in office. But even in those cases, federal prosecutors had a hard time proving a specific conspiracy to "hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power" by interrupting the electoral vote tally on January 6. And the vast majority of rioters seem to have acted spontaneously, with no clear goal in mind other than expressing their outrage at an election outcome they believed was the product of massive fraud.

They believed that, of course, because that is what Trump told them. But to the extent that Trump bears moral and political responsibility for riling them up with his phony grievance (which he does), his culpability hinges on the assumption that the rioters acted impulsively and emotionally in the heat of the moment. That understanding is hard to reconcile with the Colorado Supreme Court's premise that Trump's hotheaded supporters acted in concert with the intent of forcibly preventing "a peaceful transfer of power."

Nor is it clear that Trump "engaged in" the "insurrection" that the court perceives. After reviewing dictionary definitions and the views of Henry Stanbery, the U.S. attorney general when the 14th Amendment was debated, the majority concludes that "'engaged in' requires 'an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose.'"

Trump's pre-riot speech was reckless because it was foreseeable that at least some people in his audience would be moved to go beyond peaceful protest. Some 2,000 of the 50,000 or so supporters he addressed that day (around 4 percent) participated in the assault on the Capitol. But that does not necessarily mean Trump intended that result. In concluding that he did, the court interprets Trump's demand that his supporters "fight like hell" to "save our democracy" literally rather than figuratively. It also notes that he repeatedly urged them to march toward the Capitol. As the court sees it, that means Trump "literally exhorted his supporters to fight at the Capitol."

The justices eventually concede that Trump, who never explicitly called for violence, said his supporters would be "marching to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." But they discount that phrasing as cover for Trump's actual intent. Given Trump's emphasis on the necessity of "fight[ing] like hell" to avert the disaster that would result if Biden were allowed to take office, they say, the implicit message was that the use of force was justified. In support of that conclusion, the court cites Chapman University sociologist Peter Simi, who testified that "Trump's speech took place in the context of a pattern of Trump's knowing 'encouragement and promotion of violence,'" which he accomplished by "develop[ing] and deploy[ing] a shared coded language with his violent supporters."

That seems like a pretty speculative basis for concluding that Trump intentionally encouraged his supporters to attack the Capitol. Given what we know about Trump, it is perfectly plausible that, unlike any reasonably prudent person, he was heedless of the danger that his words posed in this context. It is harder to believe that he cleverly developed a "coded language" that he knew some of his supporters would understand as a call to violence.

Nor is it clear how the violence that Trump allegedly intended was supposed to benefit him. There was no realistic prospect that it would actually stop Biden from taking office, and in the end it did no more than delay completion of the electoral vote count. Meanwhile, it alienated former Trump allies (albeit only briefly in some cases), led to his second impeachment, and left an ineradicable stain on his presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court's belief that Trump intentionally caused a riot also figures in its rejection of his argument that his January 6 speech was protected by the First Amendment. The relevant standard here comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which involved a Klansman who was convicted of promoting terrorism and criminal syndicalism. Under Brandenburg, even advocacy of illegal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is both "directed" at inciting "imminent lawless action" and "likely" to do so.

The Colorado Supreme Court quotes the 6th Circuit's elucidation of that test in the 2015 case Bible Believers v. Wayne County: "The Brandenburg test precludes speech from being sanctioned as incitement to riot unless (1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action, (2) the speaker intends that his speech will result in the use of violence or lawless action, and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action is the likely result of his speech."

It is hard to deny that Trump's speech satisfies the third prong, which is why it provoked so much well-deserved criticism and rightly figured in his impeachment. But what about the other two prongs?

Applying the first prong, the court cites "the general atmosphere of political violence that President Trump created before January 6" as well as the "coded language" of his speech that day. As evidence of the "specific intent" required by the second prong, it notes that "federal agencies that President Trump oversaw identified threats of violence ahead of January 6." It also cites what it takes to be the implicit message of Trump's speech and his reluctance to intervene after the riot started.

"President Trump intended that his speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action on January 6 to prevent the peaceful transfer of power," the court says. "Despite his knowledge of the anger that he had instigated, his calls to arms, his awareness of the threats of violence that had been made leading up to January 6, and the obvious fact that many in the crowd were angry and armed, President Trump told his riled-up supporters to walk down to the Capitol and fight. He then stood back and let the fighting happen, despite having the ability and authority to stop it (with his words or by calling in the military), thereby confirming that this violence was what he intended."

All of this evidence is consistent with recklessness and dereliction of duty. But it falls short of proving that Trump deliberately "encouraged the use of violence" or that he had a "specific intent" to cause a riot, let alone that he thereby "engaged in insurrection."