Today, the following amicus (friend of the court) briefs were submitted to the Minnesota Supreme Court in Growe v. Simon, our lawsuit to bar Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Previously, the Court had requested briefing on “(1) justiciability, including standing and ripeness; and (2) the legal construction of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, including but not limited to (a) whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing; (b) whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment operates to preclude a person from being President of the United States; and (c) whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to a person who has previously taken an oath as President of the United States.” We filed our brief on these threshold legal issues on Wednesday, October 4.  

Professor Gerard Magliocca

Professor Gerard Magliocca of Indiana University School of Law, the nation’s leading expert on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, submitted a brief in support of the petitioners. His brief addresses five points: the definition of “insurrection” in Section 3; the definition of “engage” in Section 3; that Section 3 applies to the presidency; that Section 3 applies to an ex-president whose only oath to support the Constitution was as president; and that Section 3 can be enforced by states without special federal legislation. Read the brief here.

Constitutional Accountability Center

The Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief in support of the petitioners. It explains that Section 3 applies to the presidency, and that Section 3 applies to an ex-president whose only oath to support the Constitution was as president. Read the brief here.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

CREW, which is currently litigating a separate but similar case in Colorado, filed a brief in support of the petitioners. It explains that Section 3 can be enforced by states without special federal legislation.  Read the brief here.

Professor Derek Muller

Professor Derek Muller of Notre Dame Law School, who studies the role of states in administering federal elections, filed a brief in support of neither party. His brief explains that states can enforce constitutional eligibility requirements for presidential candidates, including at the presidential nomination primary stage. His brief does not take a position on issues specific to Section 3. Read the brief here.