Lawsuits to Bar Trump from Running for President Enter New Phase, Potentially Reaching U.S. Supreme Court
The campaign to use the U.S. Constitution’s “insurrection” clause to prevent former President Donald Trump from running for the White House again enters a crucial phase this week as hearings begin in two states—Colorado and Minnesota. These lawsuits could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Beginning on Monday, a weeklong hearing in Colorado will determine whether Trump should be barred from the 2024 ballot in the state. Meanwhile, on Thursday, oral arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide if Trump should be disqualified from running there.
Regardless of the rulings made in these hearings, they are likely to be challenges and ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. The highest court in the land has never ruled on the 14th Amendment’s provision, established during the Civil War, which prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution from holding higher office.
Derek T. Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame, explained the significance of these cases. While previous challenges have focused on candidates’ eligibility, such as Barack Obama’s citizenship and Ted Cruz’s birthplace, the current lawsuits bring up important issues using an obscure clause of the Constitution with a potentially “incendiary” bar against insurrection.
Legal experts consider the cases in Colorado and Minnesota to be the most significant among the dozens of lawsuits filed in recent months. These cases were initiated by liberal groups with substantial legal resources and specifically targeted states with a clear and efficient process for challenging ballot qualifications.
The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualify him from the presidency under the 14th Amendment. The lawsuits assert that Trump violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, rendering himself ineligible for public office, including the presidency.
Trump has dismissed these lawsuits as “election interference,” with his lawyers contending that the issues at hand are complex and that the provision has not been used for the presidency in 150 years. His legal team argues that the provision was never intended to apply to the office of the president, as it is not explicitly mentioned, unlike other positions.
Furthermore, Trump’s lawyers argue that he did not engage in insurrection but was exercising his right to free speech while raising concerns about the legitimacy of the election results. They also point out previous cases where Section Three of the 14th Amendment was not applied to individuals who rhetorically supported the confederacy.
The hearings in Colorado and Minnesota may include testimony from witnesses of the January 6 attack on the Capitol or other significant events during Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. Witness identities have been protected to prevent the further escalation of inflammatory rhetoric and threats related to Trump’s ongoing criminal trials.
Both sides are expected to delve into the historical context and interpretation of the provision in the 14th Amendment. Legal precedent on this issue is scarce, leading lawyers to analyze an 1869 case written by Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since the enactment of an amnesty act in 1872, there has been only one other citation of the provision when Congress refused to seat a socialist member of the House of Representatives due to his opposition to World War I. Last year, the provision was invoked to bar the head of “Cowboys for Trump” from a county commission seat in New Mexico.
While these lawsuits are considered longshots, legal experts acknowledge their plausible legal path and the significant issues they raise. The rulings made in Colorado and Minnesota will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications and could bring the issue to the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, leading to a historic decision on the interpretation of the insurrection clause.