Legal Proceedings Underway to Exclude Trump from Presidential Ballot Based on ‘Insurrection’ Clause

The initiative to disqualify former President Donald Trump from future presidential elections through the application of the “insurrection” clause of the U.S. Constitution is moving into a critical stage. This week, hearings are set to commence in two states, and the cases could potentially escalate to the United States Supreme Court for adjudication.

Legal proceedings kick off on Monday in Colorado with a weeklong hearing to examine a lawsuit aimed at preventing Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot. Concurrently, oral arguments are slated for Thursday before the Minnesota Supreme Court in a similar effort to remove Trump’s name from the electoral list in Minnesota.

Irrespective of the lower court rulings—whether they permit Trump to remain on the ballots or remove him—the decisions are anticipated to be quickly contested through appeals, potentially advancing to the U.S. Supreme Court. The apex court has yet to interpret the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-era clause, which forbids individuals who have sworn to uphold the Constitution but subsequently participated in an insurrection from holding high office.

Law professor Derek T. Muller of Notre Dame University noted that while eligibility of presidential candidates has been a subject of legal scrutiny in the past—as in the cases of Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and John McCain—those challenges primarily questioned candidates’ status as “natural born citizens.” The current cases are unique, as they invoke a lesser-known constitutional provision specifically targeting insurrection.

Further Context

Numerous lawsuits invoking Section Three of the 14th Amendment have been filed recently. However, those originating in Colorado and Minnesota have been highlighted as particularly crucial by legal experts. The significance of these cases arises from the fact that they have been brought forth by two well-resourced liberal groups and focus on states with streamlined processes for challenging candidates’ ballot qualifications. This makes these cases more legally robust in persuading the courts to compel electoral officials to disqualify Trump.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s actions to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, culminating in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, effectively disqualify him from the presidency, much like not being a natural-born citizen would.

The Colorado lawsuit, represented by the liberal advocacy organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, contends that by initiating an unparalleled assault on American constitutional governance, Trump violated his oath of office and thus rendered himself ineligible for public office under the 14th Amendment.

Counterarguments

In response, Trump has lambasted the lawsuits as a form of “election interference.” His legal team argues that the insurrection clause, a provision of the Constitution not invoked for 150 years, was never designed to apply to the office of the President. They further argue that the clause allows for amnesty by Congress and insist that Trump never engaged in insurrection but was merely exercising his First Amendment rights.

The upcoming hearings in Colorado may feature testimonies related to the events of January 6 or other key moments in Trump’s endeavors to reverse the 2020 election results. Lawyers are expected to scrutinize exhaustively the historical origins and applications of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection provision, particularly since legal precedents on this issue are scant.

Recent Developments

This legal mechanism has been employed sparingly since the Civil War and only once after an amnesty act was passed in 1872. Recently, however, it was utilized to disqualify the leader of “Cowboys for Trump” from a county commission seat in rural New Mexico. Another liberal organization, Free Speech For People, has filed lawsuits attempting to prevent Republican Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Madison Cawthorn from seeking re-election, although with varying degrees of success.

Thus, these cases could pave the way for new legal interpretations and set precedents that impact not only the future of individual politicians but also the broader American electoral landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Insurrection Clause and Presidential Eligibility

More about Insurrection Clause and Presidential Eligibility

• 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• The Insurrection Clause Explained
• Previous Cases Challenging Presidential Eligibility
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
• Free Speech For People Organization
• U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Electoral Matters
• Legal Precedents on the Use of 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause
• Colorado and Minnesota Electoral Laws
• Historical Context of the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause
• The Amnesty Act of 1872