A federal judge dismissed yet another challenge to former President Donald Trump’s eligibility as a candidate under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, this time in South Carolina ahead of the state’s primary this month.
As a U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding President Trump’s eligibility looms overhead, set to be issued in less than one week, President Trump is still litigating several ongoing challenges of this nature in state and federal jurisdictions.
The South Carolina case was one of some 20 brought by John Anthony Castro, a little-known Republican candidate who was recently charged with several tax crimes. According to President Trump’s attorneys, as of early January they had encountered some 60 challenges across at least 30 states.
U.S. District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis found the case to be “without merit.”
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung described it a “stinging defeat.”
“Crooked Joe Biden’s election interference efforts were dealt another stinging defeat in federal court in South Carolina today,” he stated. “The allies of Crooked Joe are desperately flailing in their attempts to deprive the voters of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice, President Donald J. Trump, and we believe a fair ruling by the Supreme Court in the Colorado case will shut down these ‘14th Amendment’ hoaxes once and for all.”
Judge Lewis noted that Mr. Castro had not brought this case until September despite “actively seeking” to disqualify President Trump since 2022, and did not find that Mr. Castro presented serious arguments.
“Indeed, Castro’s delay in bringing this case demonstrates to the Court the relief he seeks is less urgent than he makes it seem,” the Jan. 30 order reads.
On Feb. 2, Mr. Castro appealed the case to a higher court. But the South Carolina primary will be held on Feb. 24, and the issue is likely moot.
In federal courts in about two dozen states, Mr. Castro has argued that to allow President Trump on the ballot when he is allegedly disqualified would “siphon” votes away from other candidates such as himself.
More than one judge has questioned Mr. Castro’s seriousness in running a campaign, ruling that Mr. Castro has not shown that President Trump’s candidacy has caused him any real harm. A federal judge in New Hampshire found that, to the contrary, Mr. Castro’s primary method of campaigning seemed to be implicating President Trump through lawsuits against state election officials.
“To the extent Castro argues Trump will siphon voters from him if he remains a candidate, he has failed to show such harm is anything more than speculative, inasmuch as he has failed to show a likelihood that voters who would otherwise vote for Trump would instead choose to vote for him,” reads the South Carolina order.
Supreme Court Fast-Tracks Case
The high court accepted the case on Jan. 5, and dozens of groups and individuals have since filed 79 amicus briefs urging the court to decide one way or another on the matter of President Trump’s eligibility.
Oral arguments have been scheduled for 80 minutes on Feb. 8, and the court stated it intends to issue a written opinion the same day.
On Feb. 2, the court granted President Trump’s team 40 minutes, respondents representing the six Colorado voters who sued 30 minutes, and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold 10 minutes.
Ms. Griswold was the original defendant of the petition in Colorado, and had not taken an official position on President Trump’s eligibility, but has publicly stated that she agreed with the state ruling to disqualify him as a candidate.
Colorado was the first state to issue such a ruling, and the Maine state secretary soon followed, but other jurisdictions, including a Maine court, have opted to wait for the high court to rule.
This novel legal theory rests on the premise that Jan. 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection” as described in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars those who have sworn an oath of office and later participated in an insurrection or rebellion, or aided or gave comfort to enemies, from taking office without a two-thirds vote from Congress. The post-Civil War statute was meant to prevent officers who abandoned their office to join the Confederacy from returning without broad approval from the states.
The legal questions arising out of the wave of eligibility challenges have only multiplied. Petitioners argue that it is a straightforward matter of ordering state election officials to remove ineligible candidates as per state laws, but judges, attorneys for President Trump, and third-party experts have pointed out myriad statutory, constitutional, and jurisdiction issues while also asking whether, under the political question doctrine, this question cannot be handled by the courts.
With a name like Castro, you just got to know that the spirit and Ghost of Uncle Fidel is moving their minds into mayhem. More secular socialism, disguised as honest Christian American democracy used to save the imagined American Democracy where it is the censors, the violators of home invasions, false lawsuits, and stolen elections who are the REAL threat to all things American. When in doubt throw their illegality out,,,out of power and out of the country.
infantile argument! (kids call others names)
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By Any Other Name would smell as sweet.” – Shakespeare
That which is called Oldave, could not smell like any other thing but internet troll. Follow me from another site, I’ll follow you “To hell and back” – Like Audey Murphy’s biography
With SCOTUS going to make a ruling it ISN’T WORTH THE TIME for a court in SC to make a decision!!!! IMO, Trump should be taken off the ballot nation-wide. With the majority of the SCOTUS justices being CONSTRUCTIONISTS [if the CONSTITUTION doesn’t say something they don’t ‘make law from the bench’] I think it’s likely he will be removed nation-wide. Though there could possibly be the argument Trump didn’t ACTIVELY encourage the attack.
You seriously think that you have the right to stop people from voting for who they want to lead the nation, because you don’t like mean tweets? Why not just move to a communist nation and live with like minded people?
So why not just do away then, with ALL LOWER courts, and have just the scotus then…
Your tactics are right out of Hitler’s playbook for the Jews,,,if you cannot convert them, you cannot control them, just exterminate them from the game like so many sacrificed chess pieces,,,,and then take their wealth to finance your own failed National Socialist (NAZI) policies, that protects THE Party OVER the people. Anyone with an iota of educatrion on Democracy, free speech, RIghts to property and protection from home invasion understands that this modern democrat party is more SOCIALIST than American Democrat. Our founders warned of the danger of pure Democray and mob rule via the emotional flavor of the day. They created a REPUBLIC rather than this Biden created idiocracy, where whenever you turn on their secular lights they use to try to indoctrinate , never enlighten us,,,, you begin to see the faint tatoo’s embeeded in their lampshades that resemble the Ameircan flags displayed on the arms of those arrested for protesting on Januarty 6th. We have not seen so many conservative political people dissapear into “reindoctrination camps” since Auschwitz and Treblinka shut down. Stange that done of their brown shirted BLM street hell raisers ever get arrested, nor any of the foreign illegals who they give more rights to than legal American citizens can acquire. Nobody dared to run against Hitler either or got turned into human lampshades themselves.
The waste of taxpayer dollars for every frivolous case is a disgrace! One federal judge in Hawaii said Trump could not keep terrorists out of the country, why can’t one federal judge say all of these frivolous cases are null and void? Save taxpayers hard earned money !!!
Ol Dave is a troll.
Ignore him.
In spite of laws broken, protocols stepped on or questionable behavior, US may do well to allow anyone on the ballot. Could spark the unexpected. Unprecedented and probably wrong but these are different times. Allow anybody on the ballot.
So rather than SQUASH law breaking, just open it up further?!
Can you spell “election interference boys and girls?