The Minnesota Supreme Court has made a significant decision by dismissing a lawsuit that aimed to exclude former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot. This lawsuit was based on an interpretation of the constitutional provision that prevents individuals who have “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.
By declining to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to prevent someone from running for the presidency, the state’s high court has avoided becoming the first in history to do so. Rather than addressing the central question of whether Trump’s involvement in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualifies him from the presidency, the court’s ruling states that state law permits political parties to include anyone they choose on the primary ballot.
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, who issued the ruling, highlighted that there is no state statute prohibiting a major political party from nominating a candidate who is ineligible to hold office or supporting such a candidate at the national convention. It’s worth noting that two justices recused themselves from the November 2 hearing.
Although the court’s decision allows Trump to remain on the primary ballot, it does not eliminate the possibility of future challenges to remove him from the general election ballot in November. The lawsuit in Minnesota was brought forth by the liberal group Free Speech For People, but they have not yet commented on the ruling or announced whether they plan to appeal.
This ruling marks the first of several ongoing lawsuits filed by liberal groups aiming to utilize Section 3 as a means to disqualify the frontrunner in the Republican presidential primary.
Trump Defends Against 14th Amendment Lawsuit
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump confidently declared the dismissal of a “ridiculous” lawsuit by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Congratulating all those who fought against this perceived “HOAX,” Trump made his opinion clear.
The lawsuit focused on a provision within the 14th Amendment that prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection against the constitution from holding office. Initially intended to deter former confederates from assuming positions in both state and federal government after the Civil War, this provision has now become a source of contention.
The plaintiffs argue that Section 3, which dictates this restriction, should be treated as just another qualification for presidency, akin to the minimum age requirement of 35 years old. They chose to file their case in Minnesota due to its efficient process for challenging ballot qualifications, taking advantage of an opportunity for their case to be heard directly by the state’s highest court.
Trump’s legal team countered by claiming that Section 3 holds no weight unless Congress clearly defines the criteria and procedures for its application. They further argued that the events of January 6th, classified by some as an insurrection, fail to meet the legal definition of such a term. Trump’s defense also highlighted his exercise of free speech rights and contended that the clause in question does not extend to the presidency, as it is not explicitly mentioned in the text.
Similar cases are currently underway in other states, with Colorado set to conclude proceedings next week. It is widely anticipated that this matter will ultimately find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to address Section 3 in any previous rulings.
