Minnesota Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Effort to Bar Trump from 2024 Ballot
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The legal battle to prevent former President Donald Trump from running for the White House again in 2024 reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday. The oral arguments heard by the court come as a similar case is unfolding in Colorado.
Lawsuits seeking to bar Trump from state ballots in 2024 have been filed across the country, with the Colorado and Minnesota cases being the furthest along. These cases could ultimately make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never before ruled on this issue.
The central argument in both cases revolves around Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution from holding office. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol qualifies as an insurrection and therefore disqualifies him from running for office again.
In the Minnesota case, the plaintiffs are urging the state’s highest court to declare Trump disqualified and direct the secretary of state to keep him off the ballot for the state’s March 5 primary. They have also suggested the possibility of an evidentiary hearing, which would further delay a final resolution. Trump’s legal team opposes this.
The petitioners in the Minnesota case wrote in their filing, “The events of January 6, 2021, amounted to an insurrection or a rebellion under Section 3: a violent, coordinated effort to storm the Capitol to obstruct and prevent the Vice President of the United States and the United States Congress from fulfilling their constitutional roles…to illegally extend then-President Trump’s tenure in office.”
In response, Trump’s lawyers argue that while the events of January 6th were a riot, they do not qualify as an insurrection in the constitutional sense. They also point out that Trump has never been charged with insurrection in any court, although he does face other criminal charges for his attempts to overturn the 2020 results.
Trump’s main arguments are centered around the claim that Minnesota and federal law do not allow courts to strike him from the ballot and that the insurrection clause does not apply to presidents.
The Minnesota Supreme Court justices heard just over an hour of oral arguments on Thursday, with attorneys for the petitioners, including former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former Justice Paul Anderson, presenting their case. Lawyers for Trump, the Republican Party of Minnesota, and current Secretary of State Steve Simon also had the opportunity to argue their positions.
Both the Minnesota and Colorado cases have garnered significant attention, as they raise important constitutional questions regarding the scope of the insurrection clause. The lack of clear case law on the topic requires both sides to reference precedents dating back as far as 150 years.
As the legal battle continues, Secretary of State Steve Simon has requested a quick ruling from the court so that instructions can be sent to local election officials regarding Minnesota’s March primary by January 5th.
The Minnesota case was filed by Free Speech For People, while the Colorado case was initiated by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In Colorado, the challenges to Trump’s candidacy will first be heard by a judge before being appealed to the state Supreme Court. However, in Minnesota, the case skips the lower court and goes straight to the state’s highest court.
The outcome of these cases will have significant implications for future presidential elections and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The legal battle is likely to continue as it moves closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a final decision on this issue may ultimately be reached.
___
Riccardi reported from Denver.