1 of 6

The Supreme Court of the state of Michigan, in the United States, dismissed the initiative to exclude former President Donald Trump from the 2024 vote, based on the “insurrectionary prohibition” of the US Constitution. The outcome, widely anticipated, contrasts with the recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled that Trump would not be eligible to participate in the primaries due to his involvement in the invasion of the Capitol on January 6. Although this decision has been temporarily suspended, it is still subject to appeal. Given these discrepant resolutions, anticipated appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court become more crucial, especially as the country approaches the 2024 primaries.

++ Parliamentarians warn President Biden about “European persecution” aimed at technology giants

Unlike the Colorado case, the Michigan case did not come to trial and was dismissed in the early stages of the procedure. An intermediate appeals court upheld the dismissal decision on procedural grounds. The Michigan Court of Claims judge who heard the case said state law does not give election officials leeway in overseeing the eligibility of candidates in presidential primaries. He also argued that the case involved a political question inappropriate to be decided in the courts.

++ Biden says Israel should stick to saving lives

This decision was supported by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which stated: “Currently, the only imminent event is the presidential primary election. However, as explained, Trump’s disqualification is irrelevant to his specific participation in that vote.”The Michigan Supreme Court ruling was not signed, and the vote count was not released. Unlike Colorado, courts in Michigan dismissed the case entirely due to procedural issues, without analyzing whether the Jan. 6 event constituted an insurrection and whether Trump was involved in it.

One of Michigan’s judges explained on Wednesday (27) why the state court acted differently in relation to Colorado. Anti-Trump opponents “have failed to identify any analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the presidency of the United States to certify his or her legal qualifications for the office,” Judge Elizabeth Welch wrote, comparing Michigan’s election code to that of Colorado.The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, states that officials sworn to uphold the Constitution are barred from future office if they “participate in an insurrection.” This provision was used to disqualify thousands of former Confederates, but it has only been applied twice since 1919, and its vague wording makes no mention of the presidency. The Michigan lawsuit was filed in September by an advocacy organization, Free Speech For People, on behalf of a group of voters. Additionally, the suit sought an unsuccessful 14th Amendment challenge against Trump in Minnesota and recently gave rise to a new case in Oregon. The lawsuit in Colorado was brought by a separate group with liberal political leanings.