Minnesota Supreme Court rejects attempt to exclude Trump from primary ballot based on 14th Amendment challenge
Minnesota Supreme Court rejects bid to remove Trump from primary ballot based on 14th Amendment's insurrection clause but allows future challenge if he wins Republican nomination
The Minnesota Supreme Court has denied an attempt to prevent Donald Trump from being on the GOP primary ballot in the state next year, citing the "insurrection clause" of the 14th Amendment. However, the court stated that the challengers can make another attempt to block him from the general election ballot if he wins the Republican nomination. The 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War, states that US officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution are prohibited from holding future office if they have "engaged in insurrection." Nevertheless, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how to enforce this ban, and it has only been enforced twice since 1919, leading many experts to consider these challenges as unlikely to succeed.
The court's ruling is seen as a win for Trump as it allows his name to remain on the ballot for the 2024 GOP primary, where he currently has a strong lead based on recent polls. However, the Minnesota justices did not fully grant Trump's lawyers' request to keep him on the ballot for both the primary and general elections.
According to the four-page ruling, the state does not have a statute that prohibits a major political party from including an ineligible candidate on the presidential nomination primary ballot or sending delegates to the national convention to support such a candidate.
As a result, the court dismissed the case, but emphasized that the challengers are still able to "file a petition presenting their claims regarding the general election." In a statement, spokesperson Steven Cheung from the Trump campaign expressed that the decision "further validates the continuous argument of the Trump Campaign that the challenges to the 14th Amendment on the ballot are merely strategic and unconstitutional efforts to disrupt the election."
According to Cheung, these lawsuits should be swiftly dismissed upon their occurrence.
Comparable legal challenges against Trump are still in progress in Colorado and Michigan. These cases have been dealt with by liberal-leaning advocacy groups, but a diverse group of legal experts and former judges from both sides of the political spectrum have given their support to their efforts of disqualifying Trump from holding office.
The bipartisan group of Minnesota voters, known as the challengers, have the option to appeal Wednesday's decision. During the oral arguments held earlier this month, some justices expressed doubt about removing Trump from the ballot. One justice suggested exercising "judicial restraint," while another acknowledged the importance of letting the voters determine whether Trump should serve another term as president.
Most experts expect that, regardless of the initial rulings in these cases, there will be appeals that ultimately reach the US Supreme Court, potentially resolving the issue for the entire nation.
This story has been revised to include further developments.
