The Michigan Court of Appeals said Thursday it won't stop former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state's 2024 Republican primary ballot, turning aside challenges from critics who argue that his role in the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualifies him.
The court affirmed two lower court rulings without determining whether Trump falls under the insurrection clause in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
“Who to place on the primary ballot is determined by the political parties and the individual candidates,” the appeals court said in a 3-0 opinion, citing Michigan law.
The court further said Trump's possible spot on a general election ballot was not ripe for consideration.
The two-sentence clause in the 14th Amendment has been used only a handful of times since the years after the Civil War.
It's at the center of a strategy the legal advocacy group Free Speech for People has been employing in lawsuits in several states challenging Trump's eligibility for the ballot.
It’s likely that one of the lawsuits challenging Trump eventually will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the insurrection clause.
In the Michigan case, in September, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said she wouldn’t take Trump’s name off the primary ballot. She argued she didn’t have the authority.
Benson ultimately prevailed in a November 14 decision from Court of Claims Judge Robert Redford that agreed with her.
Redford ruled a primary election was too early to start worrying about Trump’s place on the general election ticket. Moreover, the question over his eligibility was a “political question,” according to Redford.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Redford’s decision. It reasoned political parties ultimately determine who appears on their presidential primary ballots. Candidates can get their names removed if they so choose.
“Michigan’s statutory scheme makes clear that the Secretary of State’s role in the context of presidential primary elections is limited,” Judge Anica Letica wrote for a three-judge appellate panel.
The appellate court similarly punted on the issue of Trump’s ballot eligibility.
“[I]t is unnecessary to make any determinations regarding whether Trump engaged in insurrection or is actually disqualified from holding the office of President of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment, at least at this time,” the opinion read.
The Trump campaign praised the ruling, calling the plaintiff's case a "bad-faith interpretation of the 14th Amendment."
