Another lawsuit has been filed that seeks the removal of former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race on the basis of key provisions of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That now much discussed portion of the nation’s guiding document restricts individuals from holding public office if they previously took an oath to defend the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection. Many have alleged Trump is disqualified because of his various ties to January 6.
The new lawsuit is in Minnesota, and it originates with a group of local plaintiffs and the advocacy organization Free Speech for People. The law firm Lockridge Grindal Nauen is also involved. The case follows a similar case filed recently in the state court system in Colorado, which features another group of local plaintiffs and the similarly focused advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Back in Minnesota, the plaintiffs in this new legal challenge even include a former Secretary of State.
“Our predecessors understood that oath-breaking insurrectionists will do it again, and worse, if allowed back into power, so they enacted the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause to protect the republic from people like Trump,” Ron Fein, an executive at Free Speech for People, asserted. “Trump is legally barred from the ballot and election officials must follow this constitutional mandate.” Their case was filed in the state court system in Minnesota. In Colorado, Trump’s team initially sought a transfer of the dispute to federal court, which could have significantly altered key dynamics of the case, but the former president’s corner later agreed with plaintiffs’ push to stay in Colorado’s state court system.
Figures tied to the case have described a legal environment in Colorado that, they argue, specifically establishes the necessary legal standing for individual voters to challenge candidates’ eligibility for office. Trump has predictably alleged there’s nothing meaningfully significant to the discussions about potentially applying the 14th Amendment. On the flip side, those challenging his run for president contend the factual record is already sufficiently established to enforce the sought restrictions, without any specific criminal conviction — or act of Congress — needed.
