I didn't see a thread on this, so I wanted to start one. I'll start with the opinion that this may very well have legs, and that there is some chance (some) that the Supreme Court will not undercut the effort. We'll have to wait and see on that, but it is going to get there, and likely quickly.
So, to background and concepts: The 14th Amendment, clause 3, states (in pertinent part) -
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,... to support the Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
A number of questions arise that may be (or have been) taken up by courts under this provision:
First, who can bring such a claim?
Second, does Congress need to create a process for this?
Third, has Congress removed such a disability?
Fourth, who has authority to reach the question (State, federal, or Supreme Court, for example, or only Congress)?
Cases that are now under consideration:
Supreme Court declines to consider longshot bid to disqualify Trump from running for president (A lower court had thrown out Castro’s case, ruling that he lacked the legal right – or standing – to bring the challenge, and his petition to the high court had asked the justices to decide whether he did have standing in the matter.) Frankly, the question Castro brought, and his standing, should have been addressed, but wasn't;
What’s next in the Colorado trial to remove Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment(CNN) 'Witness testimony wrapped up Friday in former President Donald Trump’s 14th Amendment disqualification trial in Colorado, setting the stage for a historic ruling later this month.
The weeklong trial featured testimony from legal scholars who explained the history of the amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” US Capitol Police officers who were wounded while fighting the pro-Trump mob on January 6, 2021, organizers of the Trump rally that preceded the violence, two House lawmakers and an expert on right-wing extremism.
Closing arguments are slated for November 15, and a ruling is expected soon after that.";
Trump 14th Amendment disqualification efforts reach Minnesota Supreme Court(The Hill) "Efforts to keep former President Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday, with several justices during oral arguments appearing wary that they should be the ones to determine Trump’s eligibility.
The case, brought by a left-leaning nonprofit, is one of multiple across the country seeking to prevent Trump from returning to the presidency under the clause, which provides that anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” cannot hold office.
Thursday’s arguments concerned several legal issues the nonprofit must prevail on so their case can move ahead: Does the clause apply to presidents? Can the provision be enforced without legislation from Congress? Is the issue a political question outside of the court’s authority?
Five Minnesota Supreme Court justices, four of whom were appointed by Democrats, are weighing the case after two others on the court recused. Several justices Thursday expressed concerns about the various threshold issues.
“I think your argument about the political question doctrine is — I think that’s a very serious problem for the other side on this case,” Justice Barry Anderson told Trump’s attorney."
