On a recent Friday, a progressive association took legal action in Michigan. They asserted that, due to a seldom-cited clause from the period following the Civil War in the U.S. Constitution, ex-president Donald Trump should be ineligible to vie for his previous office.
It’s a groundbreaking move, with a well-funded legal entity targeting the top Republican candidate’s efforts in a crucial electoral state.
The organization, “Advocates for Open Dialogue,” maintains that Trump’s challenges to the outcome of the 2020 elections, coupled with his role in the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol, go against the 14th Amendment’s Section 3. This part explicitly restricts those who rebel against the constitution, after swearing to defend it, from holding future office.
Notably, this isn’t their inaugural challenge against Trump. A similar case was launched in Minnesota.
Several similar legal challenges have been initiated across the country. Yet, the cases spearheaded by “Advocates for Open Dialogue” and another progressive group from Colorado are unique due to their formidable legal backing.
Responding to these legal moves, Trump labeled them as undue electoral interventions. His legal representatives, in the Colorado-related challenge, contended that it curtails his freedom of expression.
It’s widely speculated that these prominent cases might find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket, a court that hasn’t addressed this specific clause yet.
Choosing Michigan as the legal battleground is seen as a strategic maneuver. The state’s importance in elections is well-known, and recently, its Democratic Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, mentioned in a renowned newspaper that senior election officials like her don’t possess the power to use the clause against Trump.
Historically, the said constitutional clause has been called into action very few times post the Civil War.