An effort to use a Reconstruction-era constitutional amendment to keep former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot in Minnesota has been blocked in court.
“Ridiculous 14th Amendment lawsuit just thrown out by Minnesota Supreme Court. ‘Without Merit, Unconstitutional.’ Congratulations to all who fought this HOAX!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that officials who previously swore an oath to uphold the Constitution cannot hold office if they have “engaged in insurrection.”
That clause has been dusted off by Trump’s opponents, who claim that he engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, the day hundreds of protesters entered the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the 2020 election.
According to CNN, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said the Minnesota decision 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 [2024] election.”
The lawsuits trying to use the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot “should be summarily thrown out wherever they next arise,” Cheung said. Similar cases are ongoing in Michigan and Colorado, CNN reported.
The Minnesota Supreme Court noted in its ruling that “there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot … a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.”
“Because there is no error to correct here as to the presidential nomination primary … the petition must be dismissed,” the court ruled.
It was unclear if the groups that tried to keep Trump off the primary ballot would appeal. The court said it would not stop them from attempting to keep the former president off the general election ballot.
The court heard oral arguments in the case last week, according to Politico.
Ronald Fein, a lawyer representing voters who filed the suit, said the 14th Amendment “protects the republic from oath-breaking insurrectionists because its framers understood that if they’re allowed back into power, they will do the same or worse.”
“Should we do it? Even if we could do it and we can do it?” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson asked, saying courts could unleash “chaos” if different states interpret the 14th Amendment differently.
“That’s why we have a U.S. Supreme Court, which is where this probably should be decided,” Hudson said.
Justice Paul Thissen said he wasn’t certain the clause in question applies to Trump at all, pointing out that it does not specifically mention the office of the president.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
