Rule of Law

RELEASE: Disappointing Decision Ignores the Role of Courts in 14.3 Accountability

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to today’s decision by the Michigan Court of Claims in LaBrant v. Benson, a case in which the Court considered whether Donald Trump should be allowed to appear as a candidate on the Michigan ballot due to his disqualification from office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes said:

The Court’s conclusion that the voter challenge turns on a nonjusticiable political question is profoundly disappointing.  The Court takes pains to state that “the judiciary does not avoid questions because they are nuanced, complex, or difficult,” but then appears to do exactly that.   Courts can adjudicate—and have adjudicated—disqualification based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.  More troublingly, the Court today cloaks its position in deference to Congress, stating that ballot disqualification “strips Congress of its ability to ‘by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such a disability.’”  But this is not true—Congress could have acted in the past, just as Congress can act tomorrow, to remove the disqualification.  Unlike its actions with the passage of the 1872 and 1898 Confederate Amnesty Acts, Congress has chosen not to insulate from accountability insurrectionist officers who took part in the actions of January 6, 2021.

CAC Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh added:

The Framers of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment were clear about who could remove a disqualification—both chambers of Congress by a supermajority vote.  In contrast, these same Framers set no limit on who could impose disqualification, allowing for a variety of actors, including state and federal courts, to enforce the Amendment’s important protections.  In concluding otherwise, today’s decision is at odds with the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment.

##

Resources:

Case page in LaBrant v. Benson: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/labrant-v-benson/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
September 16, 2026

CAC Release: Plaintiffs File Opposition Brief Explaining Why Trump’s Efforts to Evade Accountability in Domestic Emoluments Clause Suit Should Be Rejected

WASHINGTON, DC – The Constitutional Accountability Center and Gelber Schachter & Greenberg jointly filed an...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Gerald Greenberg
Rule of Law
September 10, 2026

September 2026 Newsletter: Protecting People’s Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law Across the Country

This newsletter spends a lot of time on the U.S. Supreme Court, but here at CAC, we’re...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Perlmutter v. Blanche

In Perlmutter v. Blanche, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether the President can unilaterally remove the Register of Copyrights.
Rule of Law
August 18, 2026

Not Above the Law Creator Call

CAC's Praveen Fernandes and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse spoke about what accountability looks like now that...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Sheldon Whitehouse
Rule of Law
August 29, 2026

Interview with Praveen Fernandes, Vice President at the Constitutional Accountability Center

AbbyTheAttorney
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes spoke to Abby Winters about the weaponization of the Department...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Abby Winters
Rule of Law
September 1, 2026

Open Letter: A Network of 175+ Organizations Uniting to Defend the Rule of Law and Protect Vulnerable Communities

Nonprofits Together
CAC signed onto an open letter with a coalition of civil society, advocacy, and nonpartisan...