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 from a left-wing group to block former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot using a constitutional provision known as the “insurrection clause.”

The state’s high court dismissed the lawsuit brought by Free Speech For People, who allege Trump “incited hundreds of violent insurrectionists to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,” in a so-called effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

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

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

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

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 publicly commented on the ruling.

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

 

“Ridiculous 14th Amendment lawsuit just thrown out by Minnesota Supreme Court,” Trump said. “Congratulations to all who fought this HOAX!”

In response to the ruling, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in part: “Today’s decision in Minnesota, like New Hampshire before it, is further validation of the Trump Campaign’s consistent argument that the 14th Amendment ballot challenges are nothing more than strategic, un-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 the failed Biden presidency next November.”

Efforts to remove Trump from state ballots in the next presidential election have been appearing in a series of lawsuits nationwide from critics of the leading Republican contender.

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

Trump has criticized the lawsuits as “frivolous,” claiming that “radical Democrat dark money groups” fund the legal challenges to interfere with his attempt to retake the White House in 2025.

Trump’s attorneys have reportedly argued that the “insurrection clause” lacks power without Congressional review of how to apply it, noting that the U.S. Capitol breach doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president only used his First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

His attorneys also pointed out that the clause does not apply to the office of the presidency because it’s not mentioned in the text.

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

Trump’s lawyers filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to counter an attempt to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Michigan.

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

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