Free Speech For People and our co-counsel at Lockridge Grindal Nauen filed two briefs before the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 4th in Growe v. Simon, challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause. 

Our brief on threshold legal issues

The Minnesota Supreme Court previously ordered the petitioners to brief “(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.”  

The Petitioners’ Brief addresses these issues, explaining why petitioners have standing; the case is ripe; Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require congressional legislation; Section 3 bars an insurrectionist from the presidency; and Section 3 applies to a person who has previously taken an oath as the President of the United States. It also elucidates the legal definitions of the terms “insurrection” and “engage” as used in Section 3.   

Our opposition to the Trump Campaign’s motion to intervene

The Republican Party of Minnesota previously moved to intervene in the case as a defendant; we did not object. The Minnesota Supreme Court specifically invited “Donald J. Trump” to file a response to the petition. However, “Donald Trump For President 2024, Inc.” (a campaign committee and separate legal entity) has moved to intervene. 

Our Opposition to Donald Trump For President 2024, Inc.’s Motion to Intervene explains why the Trump Campaign should not be allowed to intervene. Although the court invited Trump to respond, the candidate and campaign are not legally interchangeable. As the brief explains, Trump made a strategic decision not to appear on his own behalf, and he cannot have the benefit of de facto party status while avoiding the less convenient consequences of engaging in the litigation himself.

Oral argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court is scheduled for November 2, 2023. 

Read the Petitioners’ Brief here

Read the Opposition to Donald Trump For President 2024, Inc.’s Motion to Intervene here