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
May 9, 2025

Dodd-Frank Authors Join Warren, Waters to Challenge CFPB Firings

Bloomberg Law
Top Democrats, Dodd-Frank namesakes cite separation of powers Amicus brief highlights CFPB’s 2008 financial crisis...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought

In National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump

In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally reorganize the federal government are constitutional...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

American Center for International Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer

In American Center for International Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to terminate en masse all of the Department...
Rule of Law
April 28, 2025

Trump’s first 100 days offer blueprint for future presidents to evade Congress

Roll Call
ANALYSIS — As he marks the first 100 days of his second term, President Donald...
Rule of Law
May 1, 2025

Bondi’s Firing of DOJ Lawyer for Lack of ‘Zealous Advocacy’ in Deportation Case Raises Concerns

Law.com
A leading legal ethics scholar warned that the U.S. attorney general’s action may “intimidate DOJ...