IOWAL (I Once Was A Lawyer (not currently practicing but used to clerk for a federal judge)) and so this is the way I read this.
The Colorado judge is bordering on brilliance with their decision.
When a case goes before a trial judge, there are two things at play:
1) The Facts, which are generally in the purview of the Trier of Fact (either the Jury or the Judge).
2) The Law, which a trial judge must be aware of and rule how the law and facts are applied to each other. Frequently, in instances like this, a trial judge can make a determination of how to interpret a law, apply the law to the facts, and whether a law is applicable or even invalid.
When a case goes up on a appeal, the further you get from the trier of fact the MORE deference appellate courts will pay to factual determinations. However, the higher up you get, the LESS deference is paid to the trial judge’s interpretation of the law. It is less common and arguably incorrect for a Supreme Court to make any interpretation or finding of fact, or substitute their findings of fact for the trial courts. But a Supreme Court has unfettered authority to interpret and rule on issues of law—that’s their job!
So, I’m thinking the Colorado judge is VERY smart, and VERY political.
Whichever way the trial judge ruled on the applicability of the 14th amendment applied to Trump, both the Appellate Court, and the Colorado Supreme Court would have complete authority to over rule the trial judge’s ruling. And likely the US Supreme Court after that. It, literally, didn’t matter how the trial judge ruled on this because there was certainly going to be an appeal by the losing party. And there would have been no deference, or even attention, paid to how the trial judge ruled on the 14th Amendment issue. They could/would have been overturned at either the appellate level, the Colorado Supreme Court or eventually the US Supreme Court (on this issue the USSC could step in, because of it’s a matter of the Constitution).
HOWEVER, and this is VERY important, every court above the trial court MUST pay at least some deference to the trial judge’s finding of fact. In this case, that finding is Trump Engaged in Insurrection. That is ONE HELL OF A FINDING. That is the MOST important thing the trial judge could have done. And it is NOT something that the higher courts could have done without this judge making That Finding in the first place.
Without that finding of ‘insurrection’ it is highly unlikely the anti-trump forces would prevail at any higher court, for to do so, the higher courts would have to substitute their finding of fact for the trial judge’s. And higher courts really shouldn’t be doing that.
Instead, what the Colorado judge did is give the Plaintiffs almost everything the trial judge could give them. The judge branded Trump an insurrectionist. That will be very hard to overturn on appeal.
The Appellate Courts will rule on the 14th Amendment however they would have ruled regardless of how the trial judge ruled. It simply didn’t matter on the legal points. But on the facts? That finding of insurrection was KEY.
That was a HUGE victory.
One last point, NOT ruling for the plaintiffs on the 14th amendment could insulate the judgment from accusations of bias and help support the judge’s finding of insurrection. That is a very smart, very political move by the judge.