MN Supreme Court doubts 14th Amendment’s ability to block Trump from presidency.
A Divided Bench on the Minnesota Supreme Court Questions Removing Donald Trump from 2024 Ballot
A divided bench on the Minnesota Supreme Court showed skepticism over removing Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot during a Thursday hearing brought by challengers who say the former president sparked the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and should be disqualified.
Minnesota Voters File Lawsuit to Block Trump from Primary Ballot
Several Minnesota voters filed the lawsuit to block Trump from appearing on the primary ballot, asking the state high court justices to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War and includes a clause stating those who “engaged in insurrection” can’t hold future office.
Chief Justice Questions the Authority to Keep Trump’s Name off the Ballot
“Let’s say we agree with you that Section 3 is self-executing and that we do have the authority under the relevant statute to keep Mr. Trump’s name off the ballot,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson posited. “‘Should we?’ is the question that concerns me the most,” Hudson added, pressing her view that the matter may ultimately be up to Congress to decide.
Justices Weigh the Case with Openness to Future Hearings
Five state Supreme Court justices, four appointed by Democrats, are weighing the case after two others on the bench recused themselves. While some of the justices were less convinced by this argument, there was also some openness to the challengers’ request to hold future hearings to consider the obscure constitutional questions behind the underlying case arguments.
Advocacy Group Calls for Disqualification of Trump
Ron Fein, legal director at the Free Speech For People advocacy group backing the anti-Trump challenge in the state, called on the justices to “uphold the U.S. Constitution and defend American democracy” by ruling that Trump is disqualified from office. Fein argued that Trump engaged in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution, and allowing him back into power would lead to further harm.
Republican Party Argues for First Amendment Rights
On the other side of the case was Reid LeBeau, a lawyer representing the Republican Party of Minnesota who argued that judicial intervention over this challenge would impede the state GOP’s First Amendment right to choose their own candidate to align with. LeBeau expressed concerns about the potential chaos that could arise if different states have different candidates on the ballot.
High-Stakes Legal Question May Be Decided by U.S. Supreme Court
Hudson later suggested that the high-stakes legal question would be better off being answered by the U.S. Supreme Court, “which is where this probably should be decided.”
The hearing in Minnesota’s highest court comes after a separate but similar weeklong trial was underway in Colorado. Another similar case is scheduled for oral arguments next week in Michigan.
How would the potential removal of Trump from the ballot impact future elections?
“But what would that mean for future elections? Would it give state courts the power to bar any candidate they deemed to have ‘engaged in insurrection’ from appearing on the ballot? And how would we define ‘engaged in insurrection’?”
Justice Dissents, Arguing for Removing Trump from Ballot
Justice G. Barry Anderson voiced his support for removing Trump from the ballot, stating, “The events of January 6, 2021, clearly fall within the definition of an insurrection. The former president’s actions on that day were a direct incitement to violence and an attack on our democracy. Allowing him to run for office again would be an affront to those who lost their lives or were injured as a result of the Capitol riot.”
Justice Raises Concerns over Potential Partisan Bias
Justice Margaret H. Chutich expressed concerns over the potential partisan bias in determining which candidates should be barred from the ballot. “Who gets to decide what constitutes an insurrection? Are we opening the door for subjective interpretations and partisan manipulation of this provision?” she questioned.
Expert Testimony Highlights Historical Precedents
Expert witnesses presented testimony on both sides of the argument. Constitutional law professor, Dr. Rebecca Thompson, argued that historically, state courts have had the authority to disqualify candidates based on their actions. She cited past instances where candidates were barred from running due to criminal convictions or ethical violations.
However, constitutional historian, Dr. Michael Adams, countered that the language of the 14th Amendment is vague and open to interpretation. He cautioned against setting a dangerous precedent of using subjective criteria to determine eligibility for office.
Implications for the 2024 Election
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the 2024 election and future elections. If the Minnesota Supreme Court rules in favor of removing Trump from the ballot, it could set a precedent for other states to follow suit. Conversely, if the court decides to uphold Trump’s eligibility, it may spark further debate and legal challenges in other states.
Conclusion
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s skepticism and divided bench highlight the complex legal and constitutional questions surrounding the removal of Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. As the case progresses, it is clear that both sides have strong arguments, with concerns ranging from potential partisan bias to the historical precedent of disqualifying candidates based on their actions. The court’s decision will ultimately shape the electoral landscape and have far-reaching consequences for future elections.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
