Trump’s presence on primary ballot upheld by Minnesota Supreme Court as ‘insurrection clause’ challenge dismissed

The Minnesota Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit that aimed to prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 primary ballot. The lawsuit was based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. However, the court declined to use this provision to bar Trump from running for the presidency, stating that state law allows political parties to choose their primary candidates freely.

Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled that there is no state statute prohibiting a major political party from including an ineligible candidate on the primary ballot or sending delegates to support them at the national convention. Two justices recused themselves from the hearing, and the court left open the possibility for the plaintiffs to attempt to remove Trump from the general election ballot in November. The lawsuit, brought by the liberal group Free Speech For People, has yet to comment on the court’s decision or indicate whether they will appeal.

This ruling marks the first outcome in a series of lawsuits filed by liberal organizations aiming to disqualify the frontrunner in the Republican presidential primary using Section 3. Trump responded to the court’s decision on his social media platform, Truth Social, calling the lawsuit “ridiculous” and celebrating its dismissal.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was historically employed to prevent former confederates from assuming government positions after the Civil War. The plaintiffs argue that this provision is a qualification for the presidency, similar to the constitutional requirement of being at least 35 years old. They chose Minnesota for their legal challenge due to the state’s expeditious process for contesting ballot qualifications, with the case going directly to the highest court.

Trump’s legal team argued that Section 3 lacks power without Congress establishing criteria and procedures for its application. They also contended that the events of the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol do not constitute an insurrection and that Trump was exercising his freedom of speech. Furthermore, they asserted that the clause does not apply to the presidency since it is not explicitly mentioned in the text.

Similar cases are being heard in other states, such as Colorado, where closing arguments are scheduled for next week. Many legal experts anticipate that the issue will ultimately be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet ruled on the interpretation of Section 3.