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
April 22, 2026

CAC Release: Targeting Civil Rights Groups Leaves All Americans Less Safe

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to yesterday’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Constitutional...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
April 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Whether Investor Harm Is a Prerequisite to an Award of Disgorgement in a Civil Action Brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s oral argument at the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. Securities...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
April 15, 2026

Court to contemplate SEC’s use of disgorgement in securities enforcement

SCOTUSBlog
CAC's amici brief on behalf of legal scholars in Sripetch v. SEC was featured in SCOTUSblog. Read more...
Rule of Law
April 14, 2026

CAC Release: Failing to Enforce Subpoena of Bondi is Failing the American People

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the unexplained cancellation of Pam Bondi’s scheduled deposition, Constitutional...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
April 2, 2026

Consumer Groups Back SEC In High Court Disgorgement Row

Law360
CAC Legal Fellow Simon Chin discussed CAC's amici brief on behalf of legal scholars in Sripetch...
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission

In Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether a showing of pecuniary harm to investors is a prerequisite to an award of disgorgement in a civil action brought by the...