The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit attempting to exclude former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot.
This refers to a constitutional stipulation that prohibits individuals who have participated in an insurrection from occupying public office.
Minnesota Supreme Court Sets Precedent on Trump Eligibility
While the court declined to make history by applying Section Three of the 14th Amendment to block Trump, it clarified that its ruling pertains solely to the state’s primary, leaving the door open for further legal challenges to bar him from the general election ballot.
The Republican front-runner’s purported involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol assault has prompted liberal groups to file a number of lawsuits, the first of which aims to use Section Three to disqualify him. This ruling is noteworthy.
The plaintiffs argue that Section Three should be treated as another qualification for the presidency, akin to the age requirement stipulated in the Constitution.
Read more: Georgia Woman’s Life Cut Short As She Serves As Israeli Cop, Stabbed By Teen Attacker
Frivolous Lawsuit Allegations by Democrats
Former President Trump has vehemently criticized these lawsuits, dismissing them as frivolous attempts by radical Democrat dark money groups to undermine democracy and hinder his pursuit of reclaiming the White House.
Trump’s legal team argued that Section Three lacks potency without Congress establishing criteria and procedures, asserting that the events of January 6 do not constitute an insurrection and that the former president was exercising his free speech rights.
Section Three, originally implemented to bar former Confederates from holding government positions after the Civil War, has become a focal point in the legal battle over Trump’s eligibility.
The provision disqualifies those who swore an oath to the constitution and subsequently engaged in insurrection. As this case unfolds, similar proceedings are underway in other states, including Colorado, where a judge is set to hear closing arguments next week.
The legal challenges underscore the complex interplay between constitutional provisions, historical context, and contemporary interpretations in the pursuit of electoral integrity.
Read more: China’s Extraordinary Deep Well Digging Project Hits 30,000 Feet
