Minnesota Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Thursday about whether states have the authority to block former presidents

Donald

Trump dropped out of the vote, with some suggesting Congress is best positioned to decide whether his role in the January 2021 attack on the Capitol should prevent him from running for office.

The justices asked pointed questions of a lawyer representing Minnesota voters who filed a lawsuit to keep Trump off the state ballot under the U.S. Constitution’s rarely used insurrection clause. Citing Congress’s role in certifying presidential electors and its ability to carry out impeachments, several justices said it appeared the eligibility issues should be resolved there.

And these all seem to suggest that Congress, not the states, should play a fundamental role, said Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson. “It’s that interrelationship that I think is troubling, suggesting that this is a national issue for Congress to decide.

The oral arguments before the state Supreme Court unfolded during an unprecedented week, as courts in two states debated a question that even the nation’s highest court had never before ruled on the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause , whether it should exclude Trump. from the vote and whether states should be allowed to decide the issue at all.

A lawsuit seeks to bar Trump from the Colorado primary, citing the Constitution’s insurrection clause

The lawsuit in Minnesota and another in Colorado, where a similar hearing is underway, are among several filed across the country to bar Trump from state ballots in 2024 over his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, an attack that was intended to block Congress’ certification. Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. The Colorado and Minnesota cases have already advanced, putting one or both cases on their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Minnesota lawsuit went straight to the state Supreme Court, where justices consistently questioned Thursday whether it was appropriate for states to determine a candidate’s eligibility to run for president. Hudson also said she was concerned about the possibility “that if multiple states decided the issue differently, chaos would ensue.”

“So, should we do it, even though we could and we can?” she said.

A lawyer representing Trump, Nicholas Nelson, said the issue of eligibility to run for president under the insurrection portion of the amendment should not even come before the court, calling it a political issue. Trump’s team asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

There is nothing the courts can decide on the eligibility question, Nelson told the justices.

The lawsuit claims Trump is disqualified from voting in California

The central argument in the Minnesota and Colorado cases is the same: Section Three of the 14th Amendment bars from holding office anyone who has previously sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and subsequently engaged in rebellion against it.

In the Minnesota case, prosecutors are asking the state’s highest court to declare Trump disqualified and order the secretary of state to bar him from voting in the state’s March 5 primary. They want the court to order an evidentiary hearing, which would mean further proceedings and delay a final resolution, something Trump’s legal team opposes.

The events of January 6, 2021 amounted to an insurrection or insurrection under Section 3: a violent, coordinated attempt to storm the Capitol to obstruct and prevent the Vice President of the United States and the United States Congress from fulfilling their constitutional roles by certifying President Biden’s victory, and illegally extending then-President Trump’s term in office, the petitioners wrote.

Trump’s lawyers acknowledged in their filings that the question of whether he is fit to hold the presidency has been the defining political controversy in our national life in recent years. They have also argued that although the events of January 6 culminated in a riot, they were not an insurrection in the constitutional sense.

Trump’s lawyers noted that the Republican former president has not been charged with insurrection in any court, although he faces state and federal criminal charges for his efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, a Democrat.

Voters in this Democratic part of Colorado supported Trump. After 100 days they have no regrets

Both the federal Constitution and Minnesota law put the resolution of this political issue where it belongs: the democratic process, in the hands of Congress or the people of the United States, they wrote in one of their documents.

Some of Trump’s main arguments are that Minnesota and federal law do not allow courts to remove him from the ballot and that the insurrection clause does not apply to presidents anyway.

The riot that took place at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was horrific. The Jan. 6 rioters entered the Capitol for several hours and fought with police. But as terrible as the fighting was, and as disturbing as the rioters’ actions were, it was not a war against the United States, they wrote in an earlier filing. Finally, Congress counted the electoral votes early the next morning. There is no evidence that the rioters, even the worst of them, were waging war against the United States or attempting to overthrow the government.

The insurrection clause does not directly mention the office of president, but instead contains vague language stating that it applies to the elector of the president and vice president. That was an issue discussed during the Colorado case earlier this week, when a law professor, drawing on research into the thinking at the time the amendment was passed, tested whether it was indeed intended to apply to presidential candidates .

It was also raised in arguments before the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday, with one judge calling it strange that the word “president” was not included in part three.

Associated Press writers Christina A. Cassidy and Steve Karnowski contributed to this report.