OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
On September 26th the Supreme Court of the United States of America will decide whether to take on the pending case of John Castro v. Donald Trump. Castro, a Texas attorney running for President in 2024 as a write-in candidate has been publicly advocating to remove Trump from the ballot since 2022.
According to 19fortyfive, Castro is claiming that Trump participated in an insurrection against the U.S. government by organizing the ‘Save America Rally’ at the National Mall on Jan. 6th, 2021. In the text of the petition to the Supreme Court Castro states he is seeking, “the federal judiciary make a declaration regarding everyone’s legal rights and status, including , but not limited to a declaration regarding the constitutionality of Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy, to enjoin any further fundraising or campaigning, and to ensure the prevention of his inauguration int he even the Republican Party is unable to prevent his nomination and subsequent election.”
Castro’s case was tossed by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon on lack of standing he is appealing the ruling on the argument that he “As a fellow primary candidate, whose injury would be competitive injury in the form of a diminution of votes and/or fundraising, has federal judicial standing to sue a candidate he or she believes in ineligible to hold office.”
The outlet, 19fortyfive citing FEC records noted that Castro has self-funded his campaign to the tune of a $20 million donation and has raised no other funds. In his brief to SCOTUS Castro lays out plainly that it is his goal to “display his executive leadership by single-handedly ending Trump’s political career.”
Before filing the lawsuit Castro posted to Facebook, “Tomorrow’s federal lawsuit against the FEC and Trump is just the beginning. I will not rest until Trump is banned from public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment along with every federal, state, and local public official that expressed support for the January 6 Insurrection. #StormIsComing #IAmTheStorm.”
Former President Donald Trump responded to this attempt to remove him from the ballot among others on Monday with a post to Truth Social.
“Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election,” he wrote.
“Like Election Interference, it is just another ‘trick’ being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
According to Newsweek, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told the outlet that it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will agree with Castro given that Trump has not been charged or convicted of insurrection or rebellion.
“A conviction is not required under the plain language of the Constitution,” she claimed, “but it’s telling that even those prosecuting Trump don’t believe that there is enough evidence to convict him or insurrection or sedition.”
Castro reportedly supported Trump and donated to his campaign following his 2016 victory, however, this changed after the Jan. 6th Capitol Riot with the Texas attorney becoming extremely critical of him.
Other similar attempts to oust Trump from the ballot in the courts under the flimsy pretext of the 14th Amendment’s third clause have been unsuccessful with others such as Florida attorney Lawrence Caplan’s being dismissed due to lack of standing or particular injury.
Even more startlingly, ‘legal scholars’ such as leftists Lawrence Tribe, J. Michael Luttig, and anti-Trump Republicans William Baude, and Michael Stokes Paulsen have been advocating the novel legal theory that Trump can be held ineligible for the Presidency without any conviction or due process of law.
Tribe and Luttig suggested, “The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation….The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again.”
Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz vehemently disagreed to Fox News‘ Sean Hannity on Monday stating that Trump’s critics want the clause to serve as an “impeachment substitute.”
“He said… ‘I thought it would be easier and smoother to go [via] the 14th Amendment’ – well, of course. You don’t need any proof. You don’t need [a] 50 percent vote in the House. You don’t need a two-thirds vote in the Senate. You don’t need specific charges: treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. You don’t need due process,” he explained.
“You [would] just need a couple of secretaries of state, Prof. Laurence Tribe and Adam Schiff to say it’s our opinion that this is an insurrection. We don’t think what happened after the George Floyd killing was an insurrection. We don’t think what happened with open borders or sanctuary cities is an insurrection. But we do think this was an insurrection,” Dershowitz added.
Dershowitz observed that this process would directly flout the Constitution’s impeachment provisions along with the 25th Amendment, depriving Trump of due process and the American people of the democratic process.
