A federal court dismissed a case arguing former President Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the Arizona primary ballot next year, based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
In a 12-page opinion and order, Judge Rayes noted that the civil petition filed in Arizona is one of 27 cases John Anthony Castro has filed against President Trump. The judge described the plaintiff as “ostensibly a candidate” for the Republican nomination, though Mr. Castro is mostly unknown, save for his efforts to sue President Trump, and has not made it onto national polls or any of the GOP debates.
“Castro is not genuinely competing with Trump for votes or contributions, and therefore is not suffering a concrete competitive injury,” the judge wrote, even after considering the plaintiff’s attempt to “beef up” his argument in an amended complaint.
The Trump campaign was quick to claim victory, claiming such cases are part of a publicity stunt and hit campaign against the GOP frontrunner.
Mr. Castro is not the only one to have brought a 14th Amendment challenge claiming President Trump is ineligible to run for office, but he has filed the most lawsuits in this vein. All such challenges have so far failed, though many are still pending in the courts.
14th Amendment Cases
The obscure legal theory that Section 3 disqualifies President Trump from holding office was first circulated by activist groups after Jan. 6, 2021, and picked up steam this year after President Trump had announced his intention to run for the presidency. Experts weighed in on the issue in interviews and editorials in the media, drawing attention to Section 3 as well as division over its application.The 14th Amendment was introduced after the Civil War, granting equal rights and citizenship to former slaves, and all persons born and naturalized in the United States. Section 3 was added to prevent those who engaged in “insurrections” or “rebellions” from holding office without a two-thirds vote from Congress, targeting those who left their official posts to join the Confederacy. It was used many times after the war, but has not been applied in recent history.
Not all such cases filed this year have followed the same template. The cases have mostly fallen into two camps, one being the 27 lawsuits in which Mr. Castro argues that President Trump is hurting Mr. Castro’s chances by forcing him to compete against an ineligible candidate, and the other petitions filed by large, out-of-state activist groups representing small handfuls of local voters.
Mr. Castro’s cases have sometimes been dismissed without oral arguments.
The activist petitions, often 100-plus pages and five times the length of Mr. Castro’s complaints, lay out systemic arguments that the rally and subsequent Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted a coordinated “attack” that they allege was “led” by President Trump.
These cases have been heard by judges in Michigan, Minnesota, and Colorado, resulting in varied rulings, none of which say President Trump is ineligible to appear on the upcoming primary ballots.
Most courts, including the most recent decision, decline to rule on the insurrection issue, ruling that there are jurisdictional hurdles that prevent the court from hearing arguments regarding insurrection.
Although the case rulings in each state are not binding on the others, most courts have referenced the other rulings in their own opinions, lending merit to the body of decisions that now say state courts have no jurisdiction over determining the eligibility of a presidential candidate, or whether an insurrection has taken place.
In the most recent opinion from Arizona, Judge Rayes mainly focused on the fact that Mr. Castro had no standing and was using litigation as a method of campaigning. He pointed out that the candidate had purchased a digital billboard ad to run a day before his case was heard in New Hampshire.
In footnotes, Judge Rayes cast doubt on the idea that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could be used in a way to disqualify a candidate, writing that there is a difference between a statute that pertains the the “qualification” of a candidate versus the “disqualification” of one, and suggesting that Congress holds jurisdiction over the matter.
