Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses ‘insurrection clause’ challenge to keep Trump off state’s primary ballot: report

The Minnesota Supreme Court reportedly dismissed a legal challenge by a left-wing group to block former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary election using a constitutional provision known as the “insurrection clause.”

The state’s highest court dismissed the lawsuit brought by Free Speech For People, which plead Trump “incited hundreds of violent insurrectionists to storm the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” in an alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The group turned to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies from running for office anyone who has previously taken the oath and then “engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the same, or gave aid or comfort to its enemies.” .

But the state’s high court blocked the group’s effort, reportedly ruling that state law allows political parties to put whomever they want on the primary ballot.

“There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the primary ballot for the presidential nomination, or from sending delegates to the national convention to support a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” the chief justice ruled. Supreme, Natalie Hudson.

However, the court’s ruling only applies to the state’s primary ballot and left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could make another attempt to block Trump from appearing on the general election ballot in November 2024.

Free Speech For People has not yet commented publicly on the ruling.

Trump took to his social media platform on Wednesday to celebrate the court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP

“The ridiculous 14th Amendment lawsuit was just dismissed by the Minnesota Supreme Court,” Trump saying. “Congratulations to everyone who fought this HOAX!”

Responding to the ruling, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in part: “Today’s decision in Minnesota, as before in New Hampshire, is further validation of the Trump campaign’s consistent argument that impeachments of the 14th Amendment ballot are nothing more than strategic and inefficient strategies. “Constitutional attempts to interfere with the election by desperate Democrats who see the writing on the wall: President Trump is dominating the polls and has never been in a stronger position to end Biden’s failed presidency next November.”

Efforts to remove Trump from state ballots in the upcoming presidential election have featured in a series of lawsuits across the country by critics of the Republican front-runner.

American officials ratified the Amendment in 1868 after the Civil War during the Reconstruction Era, which was designed to represent a new birth of freedom for previously disenfranchised citizens, according to the Legal Information Institute at the University of Cornell.

Trump has criticized the lawsuits as “frivolous,” alleging that “radical Democratic dark money groups” are funding legal challenges to interfere with his bid to retake the White House in 2025.

Trump’s lawyers have reportedly argued that the “insurrection clause” lacks power without a congressional review of how to apply it, noting that the breach of the US Capitol does not meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president he only used his First Amendment right to free speech. speech.

His lawyers also pointed out that the clause does not apply to the position of presidency because it is not mentioned in the text.

Other groups in Michigan and Colorado have also filed similar lawsuits against Trump. Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Monday to counter an attempt to exclude him from the 2024 presidential election in Michigan.

Trump’s lawyers filed a lawsuit Monday to counter an attempt to exclude him from the 2024 presidential election in Michigan.

But Colorado last month became the first state to take its challenge to trial under the constitutional measure, which has rarely been used in the past 150 years. A state judge has reportedly scheduled closing arguments for next week.

Legal experts reportedly expect the issue to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.