Donald Trump Gets Good News From the Supreme Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
T he U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a case that challenged former President Donald Trump 's eligibility to run for the White House in 2024.
The case was brought by John Anthony Castro, a tax consultant and long-shot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, who argued that Trump should be disqualified from running under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment due to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol. Castro cited a provision in the Civil War-era amendment that states American officials can't hold office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or had "given aid" to insurrectionists.
In August, the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted Trump on four counts in its investigation of the January 6 riot. The counts were conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. However, he was not indicted on charges related to insurrection. During his arraignment, the former president plead not guilty to the counts he was charged with.
Castro had requested the high court hear his appeal after a lower court in June found his case lacked legal standing, but the Supreme Court justices announced the case was denied without any comment or recorded vote.
Newsweek reached out to Castro via his campaign website for comment.
In his lawsuit, Castro said Trump provided "aid or comfort" to insurrectionists by expressing sympathy for those who participated in the January 6 riot as well as for saying he would consider issuing presidential pardons for people convicted of crimes related to the insurrection if he is reelected.
"A primary candidate has judicial standing to bring a claim challenging the eligibility of a fellow primary candidate for competitive injury in the form of a diminution of votes and/or fundraising if the primary candidate believes that the fellow primary candidate is ineligible to hold public office and to prevent actions irreconcilable with the U.S. Constitution," Castro wrote in his petition to the Court.
Newsweek also reached out to a representative for Trump via email for comment.
Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, indicated that he anticipated the Supreme Court would reject Castro's case.
"Castro is an unserious gadfly, so there's no surprise the Court didn't take his case," Shapiro told Newsweek in an email on Monday. "The Court will only take one of these cases if a circuit court affirms or otherwise lets stand a district court ruling throwing Trump off a ballot somewhere."
Castro's lawsuit is not the only attempt to use the 14th Amendment as an argument against Trump's eligibility. On Friday, the liberal group Free Speech For People (FSFP) filed a petition in Michigan that cites the amendment in an attempt disqualify Trump. The group used the same argument in a suit filed weeks earlier in Minnesota.
In early September, the nonpartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) also filed a legal challenge that said the insurrection provision in the 14th Amendment should block Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot in Colorado if he wins the GOP nomination for 2024.
"If the very fabric of our democracy is to hold, we must ensure that the Constitution is enforced and the same people who attacked our democratic system not be put in charge of it," CREW President Noah Bookbinder said in a statement announcing the Colorado challenge. "We aren't bringing this case to make a point, we're bringing it because it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future."
Trump recently lashed out against people who have argued that the 14th Amendment disqualifies him from regaining the presidency.
"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 in a September 4 post on Truth Social, his social media platform. "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."
Tags
Who is online
561 visitors
Much of the 14th Amendment relates to the period known as "Reconstruction."
The particulars here involve not allowing former Confederates to run for office.
The Court's ruling wasn't really a surprise.
the Colorado case brought by 3 republicans and 3 independents is much stronger.
The Court has already ruled.
on the florida case...
The court ruled on Standing for one plaintiff, not on the merits of Trump and the 14th Amendment.
The argument about the 14th amendment ignores the various amnesties and pardons issued by Andrew Johnson and the Amnesty Act of 1872. Confederate veterans served in the Senate after the end of the Civil War, too.
I learned something new today.
There’s no ruling here on the merits. The plaintiff simply lacked standing in this case and the Supremes weren’t interested in even considering that foundational issue.
So on the matters of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection, or if he should be disqualified from seeking office, we’re haven’t even reached a discussion.
What do you think of using the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from running?
I think there needs to be due process. If you want to charge and convict him - in federal criminal court - of insurrection against the United States, then he’s not eligible for office.
Anything short of that is partisan bullshit. So, simply declaring it on TV, in newspapers, or even in state houses is bullshit.
It’s especially hypocritical to want to disqualify Trump for bypassing the Constitution, while ignoring it to disqualify him from running again.
Very good Tacos.
“…to the period known as "Reconstruction."…”
Perhaps historians will rightfully conclude the trump phenomenon will be known as the period of deconstruction.
I think Biden won that honor
Got that right!
Not yet. IMO the SCOTUS is entirely unpredictable. Who would have believed they would reverse what they have already done in the face of general public sentiment, or tolerate the most unethical behaviour of its members that they do.