The Minnesota Supreme Court this week dismissed a lawsuit attempting to keep former President Trump off the ballot in the state, a decision that could impact efforts to prevent Trump from appearing on ballots in Colorado and Michigan.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The lawsuits seek to use the Disqualifications Clause,\u00a0or Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n
That clause bars individuals who have \u2018engaged in insurrection or rebellion\u2019 against America or who have aided those engaged in such activities from holding office.<\/p>\n
The lawsuits cite Trump\u2019s alleged involvement in the Capitol riot Jan. 6, 2021.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u2018There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,\u2019 Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled.<\/p>\n
The ruling potentially leaves open the possibility Trump could be kept off the ballot during the general election next November.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But Minnesota is not the only state that blocked challenges to Trump\u2019s candidacy.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Last month, a federal judge in New Hampshire also dismissed a lawsuit that sought to use the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A source familiar with the decisions and proceedings told Fox News Digital the challenges being rejected \u2018sets precedent,\u2019 which will make it \u2018harder and harder to keep Trump off the ballot\u2019 in other states.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Currently pending is a decision out of a Colorado lawsuit. Watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and six Colorado voters filed their lawsuit in September to block Trump from appearing on the primary ballot, citing the 14th Amendment.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Trump team has made multiple motions to dismiss the case, but Judge Sarah B. Wallace has rejected them.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Wallace has scheduled closing arguments for next week.\u00a0<\/p>\n
It is unclear when the Colorado case will be decided, but the trial is running through an expedited process to give state election officials enough time to certify which candidates can appear on the primary ballots.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Michigan is also considering a case on whether Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has the authority to block Trump\u2019s name from appearing on the ballot. She does not believe that she has the power to use the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But while precedent could have been set with the Minnesota and New Hampshire decisions, Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Fox News contributor, said it should not be interpreted as \u2018bulletproof.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u2018It gets to the concept known in the law as persuasive authority. The law distinguishes between binding authority in a jurisdiction and persuasive authority, which means if you\u2019re going to go against it, you better have a good reason or a persuasive argument for why you\u2019re going to do it,\u2019 McCarthy said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u2018The more current law you get for the proposition that it is not a basis to remove someone, the harder it is for judges to break ground and go the other way, but we shouldn\u2019t pretend that it is bulletproof.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n
McCarthy said \u2018persuasive authority doesn\u2019t have to be followed.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u2018I think, yes, the more precedent you get on the books that this is not an adequate way to go and that what we ought to do is let the public go to the polls on Election Day and decide the election \u2014 the more you have people saying that \u2014 the better it is,\u2019 McCarthy said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u2018But if it looks in September 2024 like Trump can win the election, I wouldn\u2019t put anything past these guys. Anything.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n