The court heard arguments on a constitutional provision that bars people from holding office if they engaged in insurrection.
Ronald Fein, an attorney for Free Speech for People, argues that Trump committed “rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution of the United States.” | Pool photo by Glen StubbeMinnesota’s top judges expressed skepticism on Thursday about the role of state courts in resolving a burgeoning debate over whether Donald Trump is ineligible to run for president in 2024.
If state courts issue conflicting rulings about Trump’s eligibility, “chaos” could ensue, with Trump’s name on the ballot in some states but not in others, Hudson told Ronald Fein, a lawyer for Free Speech for People, a nonprofit representing states voters who filed the Minnesota case. “This is a case of extraordinary importance,” Fein said. “Donald Trump engaged in rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in a desperate attempt to remain in office after losing the election.”
Even so, some justices seemed open to granting the voters’ request for an evidentiary hearing for a formal determination on whether Trump participated in an insurrection. They acknowledged there is significant ambiguity about what constitutes an insurrection in the modern era.
Österreich Neuesten Nachrichten, Österreich Schlagzeilen
Similar News:Sie können auch ähnliche Nachrichten wie diese lesen, die wir aus anderen Nachrichtenquellen gesammelt haben.
Minnesota Supreme Court to hear Donald Trump's ballot status argumentsEfforts to use the Constitution’s “insurrection' clause to prevent former President Donald Trump from running again for the White House turn to Minnesota on Thursday with oral arguments before the state Supreme Court, a hearing that will unfold as a similar case plays out in Colorado.
Weiterlesen »
Minnesota Supreme Court justices appear skeptical that states can block Trump from 2024 ballotMinnesota Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Thursday that states have the authority to block former President Donald Trump from the ballot, with some suggesting that Congress is best positioned to decide whether his role in the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack should prevent him from running.
Weiterlesen »
Minnesota Supreme Court skeptical after hearing Donald Trump's ballot status argumentsMinnesota Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Thursday that states have the authority to block former President Donald Trump from the ballot, with some suggesting that Congress is best positioned to decide whether his role in the January 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol should prevent him from running.
Weiterlesen »
Minnesota Supreme Court skeptical of 14th Amendment effort to bar Trump from presidencyKaelan Deese is a Supreme Court reporter for the Washington Examiner covering the latest happenings at the nation's highest court and the legal issues surrounding Second Amendment rights, abortion, and religious liberties. He previously wrote breaking news as a fellow for the Hill during the 2020 election cycle.
Weiterlesen »
Democrats Continue ‘Reverse Court-Packing’ Supreme Court, Illegally Target Leonard Leo, Justices Thomas and AlitoSource of breaking news and analysis, insightful commentary and original reporting, curated and written specifically for the new generation of independent and conservative thinkers.
Weiterlesen »
Court fights invoking US Constitution's 'insurrection clause' against Trump turn to MinnesotaEfforts to use the Constitution’s “insurrection” clause to prevent former President Donald Trump from running again for the White House are turning to Minnesota with oral arguments before the state Supreme Court
Weiterlesen »