Federal Court Asked to Address 14th Amendment Effort to Bar Trump

Legal academics are divided on the new popular theory that former President Donald Trump can be removed from ballots under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. While I respect many of the academics who view this as a credible interpretation, I have long opposed it as textually and historically flawed. In addition to some exaggerated claims of precedent, I view the theory as one of the most dangerous in my lifetime. One thing, however, we agree upon: it is time for the federal courts to rule on this theory to bring clarity to the election. That may now occur in West Virginia where Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wants a federal court to throw out a lawsuit attempting to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in the state. What is most striking about the filing is the accusation of judge-shopping by advocates like John Anthony Castro in seeking to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in the state.

I have previously addressed the constitutional basis for this claim. It is, in my view, wildly out of sync with the purpose of the amendment, which followed an actual rebellion, the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment bars those who took the oath and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” It then adds that that disqualification can extend to those who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The “disqualification clause” was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865 when many members were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.

Justice Edwin Reade of the North Carolina Supreme Court later explained, “[t]he idea [was] that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again.”

According to these experts, Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” and Trump gave “aid and comfort” to those who engaged in it by spreading election fraud claims and not immediately denouncing the violence.

Polls have shown that most of the public view Jan. 6 for what it was: a protest that became a riot. One year after the riot, CBS News mostly downplayed and ignored the result of its own poll showing that 76 percent viewed it for what it was, as a “protest gone too far.” The view that it was an actual “insurrection” was far less settled, with almost half rejecting the claim, a division breaking along partisan lines.

Nevertheless, Democrats have claimed that the 14th Amendment prevents Trump from running because he supported an “insurrection or rebellion.”

They have argued that this long dormant clause can be used to block not just Trump but 120 Republicans in Congress from running for office.

The lawsuit could offer a long needed judicial review and an avenue to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. Yet, what was most notable was this paragraph in the filing on the motives and means used by Castro:

“Plaintiff John Anthony Castro filed this lawsuit as part of a multi-state litigation effort that he dubs “Operation Deadlock.” John Anthony Castro (@realJohnACastro), X (Sept. 20, 2023, 2:17 PM), https://bit.ly/48GyE9y. Castro’s supposed operation involves filing suit after suit— roughly two dozen so far—seeking to disqualify President Donald Trump from running for election again. Castro will then “sidelin[e] and neutraliz[e] the influence of conservative judges” by “nonsuit[ing] those cases” that are not assigned to “Obama-appointed or Clinton appointed judges.” Katherine Fung, Donald Trump’s Lawyers Get Stretched Even Thinner, NEWSWEEK (Sept. 19, 2023, 11:22 AM), https://bit.ly/3S2a25B; see, e.g., Notice of Dismissal, Castro v. Henderson, No. 2:23-cv-00617 (D. Utah Sept. 27, 2023), ECF No. 14 (Castro dismissing his suit after it was reassigned to a judge appointed by President Trump); but see, e.g., In re Fieger, No. 97-1359, 1999 WL 717991 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 1999) (affirming sanctions against attorney who had “dismissed [his] cases so that he could select the judge”). Castro evidently hopes these efforts will “completely bankrupt [President Trump] by next summer.” John Anthony Castro (@realJohnACastro), X (Sept. 27, 2023, 8:40 PM), https://bit.ly/45gxpLq.”

Castro is running for the Republican presidential nomination. Recently, the Supreme Court refused to hear one of Castro’s cases.

Castro has been open about forum and judge shopping to get liberal, Democratic judges to rule against Trump. Castro tweeted:

“The fight is far from being over. We’re going to get the liberal 9th Circuit to kick Trump off the ballot in Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona. Coupled with the 1st Circuit kicking him off the Maine ballot, there’s ZERO path to 270. The Supreme Court can deny to hear the case but appellate courts cannot. I’m still pursuing decisions in the liberal appellate courts and there’s a full blown trial scheduled for October 20 in New Hampshire and a bench trial in Arizona on October 31.”

I tend to favor broad standing rules, but Castro’s open effort to secure review from liberal, Democratic judges should offend not only these jurists but most Americans. Castro received a J.D. from the University of New Mexico and LLM from Georgetown University.

Courts have universally denounced judge shopping. Most, like the federal court in northern Illinois, denounce the practice: “No one should be able to manipulate the assignment system in order to determine in advance which judge will get a case where the assignment is by lot.”

Obviously “forum shopping” does occur. Lawyers will seek to file in the most favorable jurisdiction, including prosecutors. Yet, I have never seen a lawyer openly discussing the manipulation of filings in search of liberal judges to achieve a particular result. The filing is accusing Castro of actually withdrawing lawsuits when he receives a judge who is not reliably liberal.

Castro must realize that he is insulting these liberal judges and making this already novel challenge even more difficult. However, it is an example of using cases to appeal to the court of public opinion. Castro knows that such raw political moves will thrill many in this age of rage.

For advocates of the 14th Amendment theory, Castro could not be a worse figure to move this claim into the courts. He adds a noxious means to a novel theory to bar Trump from ballots.  Of course, this is all being done by advocates who claim that they are defending democracy but denying the ability of others to vote for one of the leading candidates for the presidency.

241 thoughts on “Federal Court Asked to Address 14th Amendment Effort to Bar Trump”

  1. If violating one’s oath as an elected official to uphold the Constitution disqualifies one from running for, or holding, elected office in the future, then would not President Biden be disqualified from the ballot in 2024 because of his failure to uphold federal immigration laws as they are written? Not to mention direct violation of (Supreme Court) case law regarding negation of student loan debt?

  2. Folks – calm down. the 3rd part of the 14th Amendment was legally removed in 1872. See the Amnesty Act of 1872. It has a wikipedia page.

  3. Quite frankly, I find it ironic that the people who want to use the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from being on the November 2024 ballot, are protecting the Dems in Congress who orchestrated the “whole” emergency of an insurrection, requiring the just put in place emergency rules to be followed by the Congress on voting on the electoral college ballots.
    The true insurrectionist is Nancy Pelosi and her cabal.
    Ms. Pelosi refused Trump’s offer of National Guard help on January 6, 2021.

    Ms. Pelosi was responsible for security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    Ms. Pelosi was in charge of setting the security boundaries of the Capitol, ensnaring many long time visitors in a trap.

    Ms. Pelosi was in charge of rule changes affecting the electoral college ballot votes.

    Ms. Pelosi is on video record saying she would punch Trump in the face, Mr. Trump still being the sitting President at the time. This alone is punishable by law.

    Ms. Pelosi did in fact commit an insurrection on January 6, 2021, by her actions, and anyone, and everyone who did nothing to stop these actions, who agreed with these actions, who participated in these actions, did in fact violate their oath of office, and as such are treasonous in that they aided and abetted Joe Biden, a agent of china, to become the current resident of the white House.

    Someday I’ll tell you how I really feel . .

    1. I believe the actual reason for the evacuation was a very carefully timed and coordinated “bomb scare” caused by the amazingly timed finding of fake bombs at the RNC and DNC. Also amazing is that of all the persons the FBI was able to identify and locate, the FBI could not find the bomber? Even though there is film of the person showing exact time and location the person used a cell phone. Especially considering it was in the early morning hours with few other persons present!!

  4. The 14th Amendment does not apply to the president – Trump or any other. Read the constitution in context of the other sections. This is so obvious the claim is ridiculous on its face. But this is an example of our failing educational institutions.
    “person . . . who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States.” Where is the office of the president mentioned?

    The president BTW is not an officer of the United States. Four provisions of the Constitution use the phrase “Officers . . . of the United States”: the Appointments Clause, the Impeachment Clause, the Oaths Clause and the Commissions Clause. Read them again and you will see that the president is not an officer of the United States. In a Supreme Court case Justice Roberts notes that people do not vote for officers of the United States. There are other Supreme Court cases to look at as well that draw the distinction between the president and officer of the United States.

  5. We hope you’ll find something interesting here:
    Possible volcanic winter, bunkers are useless, Boeing has the global solution!
    REGULAR drills & Earth lasers’ plasma shield by Boeing, not only can repel space electricity that provenly stimulates magma (Ebisuzaki, 2011) & dissolve storms (Univ. of Geneva), but it CAN also prevent chaos by a devastating global blackout/1300 nuclear reactors’ blasting by asteroid explosion (as in Tunguska-1908 & Chelyabinsk-2013) or a solar storm hit! TWELVE times near-miss extinction so far: 1972, 1989, 1991, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 https://GlobalBlackoutPrevention.wordpress.com

  6. Had enough yet? At what point do the righteous, educated and moral American people rise up united against these corrupt global elites? Our form of government is solid, it is the self serving corrupt clowns running the show that need to go. They are complicit, they are corrupted, it goes far beyond our own reach, follow the money.
    Arise America or they will bend you till you break.

    1. Had enough yet? At what point do the righteous, educated and moral American people rise up united against these corrupt global elites?

      You expect Americans to take action in the flesh!? take to the streets!? defend the nation for its freedoms!? seriously? You fascist

      1. They’re all idiots. An insurrection can only occur against the executive branch of government. The head of government. Governments are overthrown by taking down the a president a prime minister a dictator. Insurrections cannot and do not occur at the legislative level. This is just stupidity. When are lawyers like Turley going to explain this to these morons. And furthermore Section 3 cannot apply to the sitting president. This is idiocy. Section 3 was designed to prevent sitting Governors and Congress from conspiring to overthrow the federal executive branch following the civil war. It’s never been tested. It’s probably unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply