Michigan Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Place on 2024 Primary Ballot, Rejects Insurrectionist Ban Case

The attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot based on the US Constitution's "insurrectionist ban" has been rejected by the Michigan Supreme Court. This outcome, a victory for the former president, may still see renewed efforts for the general election. The decision contrasts with the recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which removed Trump from its primary ballot due to his involvement in the January 6 Capitol riot. This decision is currently on hold pending an appeal.

With these conflicting rulings, the anticipated appeals to the US Supreme Court are now even more crucial, particularly as the country speeds towards the beginning of the 2024 primaries. In contrast to Colorado, the lawsuit in Michigan never made it to trial and was dismissed at an early stage. A higher appeals court supported the decision to reject the case based on procedural reasons.

The judge in the Michigan Court of Claims, who initially received the case, stated that state law does not provide election officials with the authority to regulate the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. Furthermore, he argued that the case raised a political question that should not be determined in the judicial system.

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday, Dec. 19, ruled Donald Trump ineligible for the White House according to the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause. As a result, he has been removed from the state's presidential primary ballot. This sets the stage for a likely showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can continue to participate in the race. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez, File)

Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP

Key Trump dates to watch in January

The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld his decision, stating that the upcoming presidential primary election was the only relevant event and Trump's disqualification was irrelevant to his placement on the ballot. The order from the Michigan Supreme Court was unsigned and the vote count was not released.

The Michigan courts dismissed the case entirely on procedural grounds, without addressing the questions of whether January 6 was an insurrection and whether Trump was involved. One of the Michigan justices explained the differences between Michigan and Colorado.

Video Ad Feedback

Here's how independent voters feel about Colorado Supreme Court removing Trump from ballot

02:38

- Source:

CNN

Justice Elizabeth Welch pointed out that the challengers of Trump have not found a similar requirement in Michigan Election Law for presidential candidates to attest to their legal qualification. This was compared to Colorado's election code. The lower-court rulings in Michigan leave the possibility open for future 14th Amendment challenges if Trump becomes the Republican nominee. Justice Welch highlighted this potential in the additional opinion she wrote on Wednesday.

Welch stated that he would support the Court of Appeals ruling, which permits appellants to pursue their legal efforts in the Michigan general election later in 2024 if Trump becomes the Republican nominee for President or runs as an independent candidate. The Minnesota Supreme Court also came to a comparable decision last month, dismissing an "insurrectionist ban" case involving Trump in relation to the GOP primary but allowing challengers to try again if he secures the nomination.

Trump denounced what he called a "pathetic gambit" on Truth Social and reiterated his baseless concerns that the 2024 election could be "rigged and stolen." Ron Fein, the legal director of Free Speech For People, expressed disappointment with the decision and pointed out that it's not legally binding outside Michigan. Attorney Mark Brewer stated that they will persist with their efforts in Michigan.

Brewer expressed disappointment in the court's decision but stated that there will be continued efforts to uphold the critical constitutional provision aimed at protecting the republic. The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, prohibits officials who take an oath to support the Constitution from holding future office if they participated in insurrection. While this provision has been used to disqualify ex-Confederates, it has only been applied twice since 1919 and does not specifically mention the presidency due to its vague wording.

The advocacy organization Free Speech For People filed the Michigan lawsuit in September on behalf of a group of voters. They also pursued an unsuccessful 14th Amendment challenge against Trump in Minnesota and recently filed a new case in Oregon. The Colorado lawsuit was initiated by a separate liberal-leaning group. This story has been updated with additional details and background information.