Former President Donald Trump greets attendees after speaking at the Republican Party of Florida Freedom Summit, Saturday, Nov. 4, 2023, in Kissimmee, Florida. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack)Phelan M. Ebenhack/AP
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. (AP) — The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from participating in the state’s 2024 primary election under a constitutional provision that prohibits holding office. charge to those who “participated in an insurrection.”
The state’s highest court refused to become the first in history to use Section Three of the 14th Amendment to prevent someone from running in the presidential election. The court sidestepped the central issue of the lawsuit — does Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualify him from the presidency? — by ruling that state law allows parties to nominate whomever want on the primary ballot.
“There is no state statute that prohibits a political party from participating in the presidential primary election, or from sending delegates to the national convention in support of a candidate ineligible for office,” Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled. Two judges had refused to participate in the November 2 hearing.
The court left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could again try to remove Trump from the November general election ballot. The challenge in Minnesota was brought by the liberal group Free Speech For People, which had no immediate comment on the decision or said whether it will file an appeal.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
The ruling is the first in a series of lawsuits filed by liberal groups seeking to use Section Three to end the GOP presidential primary front-runner’s candidacy.
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump said: “Ridiculous lawsuit against the 14th amendment was just rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court.” And he added: “Congratulations to all those who fought against this setup!”
The provision in question prohibits the holding of office by any person who has taken an oath to the Constitution and then “participated in an insurrection” against it. It was primarily used to prevent former Confederates from holding positions in state and federal government after the Civil War.
The plaintiffs maintain that Section Three is nothing more than another requirement for accession to the presidency, as is the constitutional requirement that the president be at least 35 years old. They filed the lawsuit in Minnesota because Minnesota has a fast process for challenging ballot requirements, and the case was tried directly by the state’s highest court.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Trump’s lawyers argued that Section Three has no power without Congress establishing criteria and procedures for its application, that the January 6 attack does not meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president was simply using his powers. freedom of expression rights. They also argued that the clause does not apply to the office of the presidency, which is not mentioned in the text.
Parallel cases are being argued in other states, such as Colorado, where a state judge scheduled closing arguments for next week.
Many legal scholars expect the issue to reach the federal Supreme Court, which has never ruled on Section Three.
2023-11-08 23:51:11
#Minnesota #Supreme #Court #rejects #lawsuit #prevent #Trump #ballot
