The Minnesota Supreme Court is wrestling with a challenge to former President Trump’s eligibility based on the 14th Amendment, as reported by The Fresno Bee on November 2, 2023. This case, initiated by a left-leaning nonprofit, is just one of several nationwide attempting to stop Trump from reentering the political arena using the 14th Amendment as a barrier.
The 14th Amendment states that anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution but then engaged in rebellion or insurrection cannot hold public office. But a key point of contention is whether this clause applies to former presidents. The language of the amendment is quite broad, referring to anyone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
The real heart of the matter is the interpretation of anyone. Can a former president be considered anyone? This question has raised doubts and complexities that the justices must grapple with.
More Read
Another question before the court is whether this provision can be enforced without specific legislation from Congress. The 14th Amendment sets the standard but doesn’t lay out the process for implementing it. This leads to the question of whether the judiciary can independently act to uphold the amendment or if Congress must pass additional laws to provide guidance on its implementation.
The justices also need to decide if this issue falls under the court’s purview. Is it a political question beyond their authority? Some of the justices expressed doubts about making such a significant decision.
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson even suggested that this might be a matter for Congress to decide, even though the court technically has the authority. With five Minnesota Supreme Court justices presiding over the case, four of whom were appointed by Democrats, the political landscape adds an extra layer of complexity. During the arguments, several justices expressed their concerns.
Justice Barry Anderson acknowledged the challenge of the political question doctrine, while Chief Justice Natalie Hudson raised the fundamental question of whether they should act, even if they can.
On the opposing side, Ron Fein, the legal director for Free Speech For People, the nonprofit behind the lawsuit, argued that the court’s intervention is essential to protect the U.S. Constitution and uphold American democracy. He stressed that Donald Trump engaged in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution to stay in office after losing the election. According to Fein, Section Three of the 14th Amendment bars Trump from holding any public office, and he urged the justices to allow the case to proceed and order an evidentiary hearing.
Regardless of the case’s outcome, it carries significant implications for the political landscape. Minnesota’s secretary of state has requested a resolution by early January to prepare for the upcoming primary. The state’s case is not unique, as similar 14th Amendment cases have been filed in various states. A trial is already underway in Colorado, and other cases are in earlier stages. Trump and his campaign argue that state courts interfering could lead to chaos if different courts reach conflicting conclusions.
Nicholas Nelson, Trump’s attorney, contends that decisions regarding presidential eligibility should not be made within the judiciary but in other forums. Reid LeBeau, representing the Republican Party of Minnesota, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that judicial intervention could infringe upon the party’s First Amendment right to choose their candidate. Chief Justice Hudson pointed out the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in deciding such significant matters.
