The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an effort to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot in a major victory for the former president.
The state top court said in a brief order that it would not hear appeals against an earlier decision of an appeals court. The judge, the first to hear the case in Michigan, said state law does not give election officials the ability to monitor the eligibility of presidential primary candidates.
The state High Court said the appeal application was considered but rejected "because we are not convinced that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court."
Trump praised this decision statement Posted on social media.
“We must prevent the 2024 election from being rigged and stolen like they stole 2020,” the statement said.
decision, which is contrary to recent decision A U.S. Supreme Court decision on this case, from the Colorado Supreme Court, is widely expected.
Cartoon on Donald Trump's impeachments
So far, Colorado is the only state that has considered the merits of the complaint, which is based on an obscure, Civil War-era provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that barred anyone deemed a "rebel" from service. Prevents from doing.
This provision, known as the "Insurrection Clause", was originally intended to prevent federal troops from entering office and undermining Reconstruction. It states that no person may hold office who has first taken an oath to support the Constitution but has then joined in rebellion or rendered aid to the enemies of the United States.
While the divided Colorado Supreme Court's 133-page decision dealt with questions about Trump's involvement in the January 6 insurrection, the Michigan courts looked only at the procedural basis for the case and did not address such questions. The Michigan and Colorado cases are among more than a dozen aimed at using the insurrection clause to keep Trump's name off state ballots.
Free Speech for the People, a group seeking to keep Trump off the ballot in several states, had asked Michigan to rule on the case before Christmas Day. Ron Fein, the group's legal director, said in a statement that Michigan's narrow decision did not address the core questions of the lawsuit.
"We are disappointed by the Michigan Supreme Court's decision," Fein said in a statement. statement, “This decision conflicts with long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that makes clear that when political parties use a state's election machinery to select their candidates for the general election through the primary process If they are, they have to follow all the constitutional requirements in that process. However, the Michigan Supreme Court did not rule out that the question of Donald Trump's disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the US Constitution could be resolved at a later stage.