By Peter Callaghan | Staff Writer

Nov. 3, 2023

For 70 minutes, five justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court listened to arguments on whether former President Donald Trump should be barred from the 2024 state presidential preference primary. The case, known as Growe v. Simon, was filed by a group of Minnesota voters supported by the organization Free Speech for People. They are asking the court to direct Secretary of State Steve Simon to reject the Minnesota Republican Party's request to include Trump's name on the primary ballot.

The main argument put forth by Ronald Fein, an attorney for Free Speech for People, is that Trump's involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, constitutes an insurrection and triggers Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section prevents individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding office. Fein argued that allowing Trump back into power would pose a threat to the Republic. State election law grants the court the authority to intervene in placing candidates on the ballot.

Representing Trump and his 2024 campaign, Nicholas Nelson argued that the decision of who should be president is a political matter that should be determined either by Congress or by the voters on Election Day. Nelson also disputed the characterization of the events on Jan. 6 as an insurrection.

The court has not yet issued a ruling and it remains to be seen whether they will rule on the merits of the case. Chief Justice Natalie Hudson questioned whether the court should exercise its authority to keep Trump's name off the ballot, suggesting that caution and judicial restraint may be warranted. Justice Paul Thissen expressed skepticism about the inclusion of the president in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Regardless of the court's decision, it is not likely to be the final word on the matter. Similar cases are being heard in other states, and if petitioners in Minnesota succeed, it is expected that Trump will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the arguments presented were extensive, the court could also decide to order an evidentiary hearing to gather more evidence before making a decision. However, Trump's lawyers oppose this, and the court may also rule that they have enough information to determine whether Section 3 has been triggered.

With two justices recusing themselves from the case, the decision will be made by the five remaining justices. However, a ruling by a minority of the justices could stir controversy.

Interestingly, the petitioner, Joan Growe, a former Minnesota Secretary of State, stated that she had limited involvement in the legal case but agrees with its premise. Both Growe and Secretary of State Steve Simon are members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

The Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling will have significant implications for the upcoming presidential primary and may have broader political consequences. The court is expected to issue its decision in due course.