A Colorado judge on Wednesday denied a request from former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers to dismiss a case challenging his eligibility for office. The judge, Sarah B. Wallace, stated that she needed more time to decide on the significant legal issues presented, many of which have never been decided by any court. The trial will continue until Friday when a final ruling will be made.

The request for a “directed verdict” was made by Mr. Trump’s lawyer before any defense witnesses were called, arguing that there was no legally sufficient basis for the plaintiffs to succeed. The defense claimed that Mr. Trump’s statements and actions leading up to the January 6 attack on the Capitol were protected by the First Amendment. Judge Wallace declined the request and is presiding over the case in a state district court in Denver.

The case was filed by six Colorado voters who argue that Mr. Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it.

During the trial, the plaintiffs’ lawyers called several witnesses over two and a half days. Experts testified to demonstrate that Mr. Trump incited far-right extremists to attack the Capitol, which they argue constitutes engaging in insurrection, as defined during the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.

One expert, Peter Simi, a sociology professor at Chapman University, explained that Mr. Trump used coded language understood by insiders as a call to violence. Professor Simi cited Mr. Trump’s statements to groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, as well as his tweets before January 6, to support this argument.

Another expert, Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, explained that the term “insurrection” in the 14th Amendment referred to any public use of force or threat of force to hinder or prevent the execution of the law. He presented various sources, including congressional debate records and court rulings, to support his interpretation.

After the plaintiffs’ lawyers finished calling witnesses, Mr. Trump’s lawyers requested a directed verdict, arguing that even if the plaintiffs’ arguments were accepted, they would not legally justify disqualifying Mr. Trump. They cited the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling, which states that unprotected incitement must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action that is likely to occur.

The plaintiffs’ team countered that incitement was not the only behavior that falls under “engaging in insurrection” defined in the 14th Amendment. They argued that Mr. Trump’s actions met the requirements of the Brandenburg test, with implicit calls for violence in his January 6 speech fulfilling the first prong and foreseeability fulfilling the second.

Judge Wallace clarified that her rejection of the request was not a ruling on which side was right but rather a recognition of the complexity of the legal questions at hand. She noted that both sides presented legal precedents supporting their arguments.

The defense then began presenting witnesses on behalf of Mr. Trump, and their testimony is expected to continue until Friday.