Heavy snow and difficult travel expected again, heaviest snow in southern Minnesota

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

The Minnesota Supreme Court sorted Thursday through a minefield of legal arguments over  former President Donald Trump’s place on state ballots in 2024, with justices voicing some skepticism about their ability to keep his name off.

The lawsuit before them could come down to whether the former president is deemed to have participated in an insurrection. During a 75-minute hearing, justices wrestled with their role in shaping the presidential ballot. Their questions about who is the proper ballot gatekeeper came fast and frequent. 

Chief Justice Natalie Hudson set the tone early on by asking what it would mean to block Trump’s name from ballots.

“You have the potentiality of 50 different states who, depending on the nature of the statutes in those states, deciding this question differently — deciding whether states have the right to determine who’s eligible for a national office, and that concerns me,” she said, voicing the possibility it would cause chaos.

“So should we do it even if we could do it and we can do it?”

Justices G. Barry Anderson and Gordon Moore honed in on the historic nature of the dispute in questions to Trump’s attorney.

“Do you agree that we’re in uncharted territory here?” Anderson, the lone Republican appointee on the court, asked.

“What does it mean in your estimation to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the constitution?“ Moore added a few minutes later. “I mean, in other words, what would petitioners have to prove to us to satisfy that standard?”

Throughout, attorneys stuck to arguments laid out in written briefs. 

Attorney Ronald Fein, representing the petitioners, said Trump forfeited his eligibility to hold federal office.

“Beginning before the election and culminating on January 6th, 2021,  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,” Fein said, citing the clause in the 14th Amendment that he said “protects the Republic from oath-breaking insurrectionists because its framers understood that if they’re allowed back into power, they will do the same or worse.”

Trump attorney Nicholas Nelson argued that Trump did not engage in insurrection. 

“You look at what’s in the public record and it’s clear from that that this does not rise to the scope or scale of an insurrection and, in particular, that what President Trump did in connection does not involve engaging in an insurrection,” Nelson said.

He said Congress has the authority to decide who is disqualified from holding federal office, not state election officials or courts.

“We have a 50-state democracy with a lot of courts and a lot of parties who like to file lawsuits. And so, you know, this may be the first — if this were to be the first — decision that someone engaged in insurrection or a president did,” he said. “It may not be the last and I think that is that does inform the political question analysis here.”

Chief Justice Hudson seemed to reinforce that.

“Insurrection might be in the eye of the beholder. It depends on who is doing the beholding.”

6 key questions for the Minnesota Supreme Court hearing

The court is expected to rule by year’s end. The plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing, which could take time. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is also possible.

“We’re prepared to put on testimony to prove that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, the combination of a rebellion and that Donald Trump engaged in it,” Fein told reporters after the hearing.

Inside the courtroom, a couple dozen filled the benches to hear the arguments. Attorneys, academics, reporters and a local high school class were there. Some who lined up to watch had to go to a spillover room.

Meanwhile, outside the Judicial Center, a handful of Trump supporters gathered with signs and flags. Jesse Smith watched the hearing on a laptop. He said voters deserve the ultimate say.

“I figured this is one of the most corrupt things I’ve ever witnessed in my life so the least I can do as a patriot is to try to stand with him,” Smith said.

Legal scholars believe that Minnesota’s case — or one like it — could prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the post-Civil War era provision.

The Minnesota lawsuit and another in Colorado, where a similar trial is playing out, are among several filed around the country to bar Trump from state ballots in 2024 over his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, an assault intended to halt Congress’ certification of 

. The Colorado and Minnesota cases are furthest along, putting one or both on an expected path to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nathan Hartshorn, the attorney representing the Secretary of State’s Office, urged the court to act quickly to allow time to get ballots printed for the 2024 presidential primary. Early voting ahead of Minnesota’s March presidential primary starts Jan. 19.

“No later than Jan. 5 so that they can start the election machinery running,” Hartshorn advised.

MPR News reporter Peter Cox and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Politics and Government News

Shows

All Things Considered

NewsPartners

Homepage

Election 2024

Dana Ferguson

Author

Minnesota Supreme Court justices appear skeptical that states have the authority to block former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Some suggested Congress is best positioned to decide.

Minnesota justices weigh Trump's future on 2024 ballot

An attorney speaks at a podium to the judges.

Minnesota justices weigh Trump's future on 2024 ballot

Go Deeper.

Like this?