The case to remove former President Donald Trump from the Massachusetts primary ballot became entangled in a legal debate Thursday over whether a state commission has jurisdiction to decide the matter.

Boston-based Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan is representing a slate of bipartisan voters in Massachusetts who challenged Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, a move made in the shadows of a potential ruling on the issue from the U.S. Supreme Court.

North Andover-based Attorney Marc Salinas, who is representing Trump, argued the State Ballot Law Commission does not have the authority to rule Trump ineligible because the MassGOP submitted the former president’s name to Secretary of State William Galvin for ballot placement instead of a formal nominating process.

And there is nothing in case or state law that says qualification to appear on the ballot “is a precondition to appear on the ballot,” Salinas said.

“If this was an issue where Donald John Trump was placed on the ballot through a nomination, or this was a question addressing being on the general election ballot after being duly nominated, then this commission would have jurisdiction. At this stage, it doesn’t,” he said.

But Liss-Riordan said Massachusetts state law gives the commission the authority to investigate “the legality, validity, completeness, and accuracy of all nomination papers and actions” that allow a candidate access to the ballot.

The one-time attorney general candidate said the three-member body can hand down a decision on any matter that pertains to the statutory and Constitutional qualifications of any nominee for national, state, or county office.

“Galvin has taken actions to place Mr. Trump on the presidential primary ballot and we are challenging the legality. Under the United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment, Section 3, we believe that Mr. Trump’s candidacy for this office and placement on the Massachusetts ballot violates the Constitution,” she said.

Boston-based Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan argued former President Donald Trump should be removed from the Massachusetts ballot. (Stuart Cahill/Boston Herald)

The commission adjourned Thursday without making a ruling on jurisdiction, with Chair Francis Crimmins Jr., a former judge, giving Liss-Riordan until the end of day Friday to file rebuttals to efforts to dismiss the case made by Salinas. Another hearing was not immediately scheduled.

The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear oral arguments Feb. 8 on Trump’s ballot eligibility that stem from a Colorado made by the state’s highest court. A Maine judge on Wednesday delayed a decision to remove Trump from the state’s ballot until the Supreme Court rules on the Colorado case.

Liss-Riordan said an outcome at the federal level does not make the Massachusetts challenge moot. The State Ballot Law Commission must make a decision on Trump’s ballot eligibility by Jan. 29 at 5 p.m., and a full hearing on the issue can be held on or after Jan. 22.

“We hope that (the Supreme Court) will address the actual Constitutional issue here. But we don’t know. They could decide also on procedural grounds that something funny about Colorado Law undid those proceedings or something state-specific,” Liss-Riordan told reporters after Thursday’s hearing.

In legal documents filed Tuesday, Liss-Riordan argued Trump “devised and implemented” a plot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to President Joe Biden.

After exhausting “various other lawful and unlawful means” to overturn the 2020 election, Trump engaged in a “last-ditch effort” to prevent the certification of the electoral college vote by gathering “an angry and armed mob” and inciting them to storm the Capitol.

“They stormed the Capitol, threatened to kill Vice President Pence and members of Congress, prevented the certification of the election results, and — for the first time in our nation’s history — disrupted the peaceful transfer of power,” she wrote.

That violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Liss-Riordan said, a Civil War-era clause that bars from office anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution but engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” against it.

Salinas asked the commission to dismiss the two challenges against the former president, arguing there “are clear procedural defects which prevent the commission from addressing the merits of the claims.”

The case “is not ripe for adjudication” because Trump has not been nominated within the meaning of state law, Salinas argued in legal documents filed Wednesday. That leaves the commission without jurisdiction to decide the matter, he wrote.

“Second, the objectors failed to serve all necessary parties as required by the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. Finally, even if the commission were to reach the merits of these claims, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to these objections,” he wrote in legal documents.

The Massachusetts Republican Party, which placed Trump’s name on the ballot, also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the case should be tossed because the objectors “failed to serve all necessary parties as required by the Code of Massachusetts Regulations.”