The next step for a Minnesota challenge to former President Donald Trump's 2024 ballot eligibility hinges on what the U.S. Supreme Court does with the Colorado high court's surprise decision to disqualify him.
The threshold question is if and when the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear Trump's appeal of the Colorado ruling, according to John Bonifaz, president of the national nonprofit Free Speech for People. "If they do take it, stay tuned," he said.
Last fall, Free Speech for People filed a petition in Minnesota claiming that Trump's attempt to set aside the results of the 2020 election and his support for the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, disqualified him from holding future office.
In both Minnesota and Colorado, the challengers cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, commonly called the insurrection clause. The provision dates to the post-Civil War Reconstruction era and prohibits former officers from holding office again if they've "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or "given aid or comfort" to those who did.
The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the challenge in early November. But on Tuesday, a slim majority of the Colorado Supreme Court said the clause prohibits Trump from being on the ballot next year. It was the first time in the nation's history that the clause had been effectively been invoked.
Trump is expected to appeal the Colorado ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final word on constitutional issues.
In a statement late Tuesday, Trump legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said the decision "attacks the very heart of this nation's democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.''
The Colorado court embraced the theory put forward last summer by two Federalist Society members who are nationally renowned constitutional law professors, including Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas Law School.