Minnesota Supreme Court to Examine the Application of Constitution’s ‘Insurrection Clause’ Against Trump

Proceedings to leverage the Constitution’s “insurrection” clause to prevent ex-President Donald Trump from making a White House run again are set to take place in Minnesota. The state Supreme Court is scheduled for oral discussions on the matter. Coincidentally, a similar lawsuit is underway in Colorado.

Multiple lawsuits have been initiated throughout the nation, seeking to restrict Trump from appearing on the 2024 state ballots, owing to his perceived involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. This incident was an attempt to obstruct Congress from validating Joe Biden’s election victory. Both the Minnesota and Colorado cases are the most advanced and are likely to escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the issue.

The core contention is rooted in Section Three of the 14th Amendment. It stipulates that anyone who has previously pledged allegiance to the Constitution and later participates in an insurrection against it cannot hold office.

In Minnesota, the petitioners are urging the top court to officially state that Trump is ineligible and instruct the secretary of state to exclude him from the upcoming state’s March 5 primary. They are also suggesting the possibility of a detailed evidentiary hearing, a proposition Trump’s attorneys contest.

Petitioners assert that the Jan. 6, 2021, occurrences can be categorized as an insurrection under Section 3. They describe it as a violent concerted act aimed at hampering the constitutional duties of both the Vice President and the Congress in affirming President Biden’s win.

On the contrary, Trump’s legal representatives, in their documents, claim that while the Jan. 6 incident descended into chaos, it does not qualify as an insurrection constitutionally. They emphasized that Trump has not been legally accused of insurrection but faces charges for trying to reverse the 2020 election outcomes.

Trump’s defense asserts that decisions on this political matter should be left to the democratic process and should involve Congress or the American public.

One of their primary defenses is that neither Minnesota nor federal regulations permit judicial systems to remove him from the ballots. Furthermore, they argue that the insurrection clause is not designed for presidents.

Referring to the Jan. 6 chaos, Trump’s team remarked that although it was a regrettable event, it did not equate to a war against the nation. They stressed that Congress proceeded to count the electoral votes shortly thereafter, with no indications suggesting the rioters intended to subvert the government.

Although the insurrection clause does not specifically reference the presidential office, it ambiguously states its applicability to the “elector of president and vice president.” This was a topic of discussion during the Colorado case. An academic, using historical context from the time the amendment was framed, argued that it was indeed meant for presidential candidates.

This lawsuit delves into whether the Jan. 6 episode can be classified as an insurrection and if Trump can be held accountable for instigating the crowd.

Given the sparse case law related to this provision, both parties are resorting to precedents that date back approximately 150 years. The 14th Amendment was enacted by Congress in 1866, post the Civil War, and was later ratified in 1868.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has allotted a limited time for oral debates on Thursday. Representatives for the petitioners, including ex-Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former Justice Paul Anderson, as well as attorneys for Trump, the Minnesota Republican Party, and current Secretary of State Steve Simon will be present.

The Minnesota lawsuit is credited to Free Speech For People, whereas the Colorado case is associated with another seasoned organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In Colorado, the initial hearing is conducted by a judge, followed by potential appeals to the state Supreme Court. In Minnesota, cases proceed directly to the supreme court.

Simon, the current secretary of state, has requested an expedited ruling to provide timely directives to local electoral officers concerning Minnesota’s March primary by Jan. 5 at the latest.

Reported by Riccardi from Denver.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about fokus keyword: insurrection clause

More about fokus keyword: insurrection clause

• [U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment]
• [Details on Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Assault]
• [Minnesota Supreme Court Proceedings]
• [Insurrection Clause in U.S. Law]
• [Donald Trump’s 2024 Election Prospects]
• [Overview of Colorado’s Similar Case]