Court Fights to Prevent Trump From Running

 November 3, 2023

Minnesota's highest court deliberates on the eligibility of Donald Trump to be on the ballot, amidst debates over the insurrection clause.

During the proceedings, the justices doubted the state's role in determining presidential candidacy. They suggested that Congress might more appropriately handle such matters.This perspective stems from the constitutional responsibilities assigned to Congress, such as certifying presidential electors and the impeachment process, FOX 9 reported.

Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson articulated concerns about the potential for chaos if states individually decided on a candidate's eligibility, which could lead to inconsistent outcomes across the nation.

Trump's legal team, led by attorney Nicholas Nelson, argued that the court should not even entertain the eligibility question, labeling it a political issue beyond judicial purview.

Insurrection Clause at the Heart of the Legal Debate

The core of the legal argument revolves around the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. It prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution from holding office.

This clause is central to the lawsuits in both Minnesota and Colorado, aiming to bar Trump from future ballots.

The Minnesota plaintiffs seek a declaration from the court that Trump is disqualified, urging the secretary of state to exclude him from the primary ballot. They are also pushing for an evidentiary hearing, which would introduce further proceedings and potentially delay a resolution.

Trump's attorneys counter that the January 6th events, while chaotic, did not constitute an insurrection in the constitutional sense, emphasizing that Trump has not been legally charged with insurrection.

Legal Implications of the Insurrection Clause

The insurrection clause's language does not directly mention the presidency, leading to debates over its applicability to presidential candidates. This issue was discussed in the Colorado case, with some finding the omission of the word "president" to be strange.

The plaintiffs argue that the January 6th attack was a violent attempt to disrupt the constitutional process. With this, they thought it fit the definition of an insurrection. They believe this should disqualify Trump from holding office again.

Trump's legal team insists that the clause was not intended to apply to presidents and that the events of January 6th. Despite being deplorable, it did not amount to an attempt to overthrow the government.


  • Minnesota Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's eligibility for the ballot under the insurrection clause.
  • Justices express skepticism over the state's authority to decide presidential candidacy, hinting at a congressional responsibility.
  • Trump's legal team argues the insurrection clause does not apply to the presidency
  • Trump's legal team argues the January 6th events do not meet the constitutional definition of an insurrection.
  • The plaintiffs call for an evidentiary hearing to further examine the events of January 6th.

Please share this article on Twitter and Facebook.

About Victor Winston

Victor is a freelance writer and researcher who focuses on national politics, geopolitics, and economics.

Top Articles



Receive information on new articles posted, important topics and tips.
Join Now
We won't send you spam. 
Unsubscribe at any time.

Recent Articles

Recent Analysis

Copyright © 2024 -
A Project of Connell Media.