The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to hear a case challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president in 2024, paving the way for him to appear on the state’s primary ballot.
The decision upholds lower court rulings rejecting the challengers’ argument that Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause when he tried to overturn the 2020 election and therefore should be disqualified from the presidency.
In its order issued Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court wrote that it is “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
The decision follows a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court last week disqualifying Trump from the presidency for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. (It’s still entirely possible that Trump will appear on the state’s primary ballot, as my colleague Jordan Rubin explained.) That case is expected to head to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks.
The 14th Amendment clause has been at the center of multiple other challenges against Trump’s eligibility across the country. The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a 14th Amendment challenge against Trump in early November. Maine’s secretary of state is expected to issue a decision this week on the matter in that state.
Mark Brewer, the lawyer for Michigan voters seeking to exclude Trump from the ballot, called the ruling “very disappointing but extremely narrow” in a tweet Wednesday. He said his clients will challenge Trump’s eligibility to appear on November’s general election ballot if he wins the GOP nomination.
A very disappointing but extremely narrow decision allowing Trump to be on the presd’l primary ballot even though he’s an ineligible insurrectionist; if he is the GOP nominee we will challenge his appearance on the general election ballot https://t.co/L30dcMVfqu
— Mark Brewer (@MarkBrewerDems) December 27, 2023
In a dissent, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote that the court should “issue a decision on the merits” given the “importance of the legal questions at issue and the speed with which the appellants and the judiciary have moved.”
Welch added, however, that Colorado’s election law differs from Michigan’s laws “in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan.”
The Democratic justice said the Michigan secretary of state has no legal authority to “remove a legally ineligible candidate from the ballot” once their name is submitted by a political party.
A Michigan Court of Claims judge first decided on the case in November, ruling that Trump’s eligibility is a “political” matter that is not up to the courts to decide. The decision was later upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which also did not determine whether the insurrection clause applied to Trump.
Welch on Wednesday said she would have affirmed the Michigan Court of Claims’ ruling, which would have allowed a similar challenge against Trump if he ultimately becomes the GOP nominee.
