See the difference?
As I mentioned before:
In the decision, the Court argues the clause is self-executing. Just as other previous SCOTUSes have ruled about other parts of the Civil War Amendments or the entire 14th Amendment.
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
This amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances.
Colorado has asserted the disability exists. Congress can remove it.
Supreme Court of Colorado has provided some clarity.
It seems likely this SCOTUS will overturn, but what the Colorado court has written -- and I suggest skimming the decision, as I have done -- is not a joke or paper tiger.
Sure it is. The provision that slaves were free and black men were eligible to vote was self-executing. Congress did not need to write any laws making that the case. States started eagerly registering newly enfranchised black voters. However, when states were a bit dilatory in extending the franchise, Congress was empowered to write laws to enforce that already existing state of affairs.
The text of the Amendment says "shall have engaged in insurrection"
The Colorado court spends a significant amount of time on "insurrection" and "engaged in". And they find that Trump meets those (and other standards) for the clause to apply.