OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
A federal judge in Nevada has rejected an effort to challenge former President Donald Trump’s eligibility in the 2024 election, finding that the challenger lacked the necessary standing.
The challenger, John Anthony Castro, a long shot for the Republican presidential nomination, was found to lack genuine standing by Federal Judge Gloria Navarro. Castro had fabricated his legal standing by filing to run for president.
“In rejecting his political competitor standing argument, courts have found that Castro improperly manufactured his standing merely to file this lawsuit,” Navarro wrote.
Navarro cited an article from The Associated Press in which Castro admitted he had no intention to seriously pursue a campaign.
“I’m not going to lie and pretend my candidacy is anything more than trying to enforce the United States Constitution, and that’s what I’m here to do,” he told the AP. “I don’t want to distract anything from the mission. The fight’s going to be in the courtroom.”
Furthermore, Castro’s challenge is limited to the state’s main. Instead of the Nevada primary, Trump will participate in the Republican caucus in the state.
Numerous states have dismissed Castro’s 14th Amendment claims against Trump, including Florida and New Hampshire.
U.S. Supreme Court justices will soon rule on the question of whether Trump is ineligible to run for president again due to a constitutional prohibition on insurrectionists holding political office.
Two states have ruled that Trump is ineligible to run for office, citing a 19th-century amendment to the U.S. Constitution and claiming Trump is unable to run over his alleged ties to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
An increasing number of states have determined that the so-called insurrection clause of the amendment does not pertain to Trump.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided earlier this month to take an emergency appeal from attorneys for Trump after the Colorado Supreme Court banned him from that state’s 2024 ballot last month.
The nation’s highest court said that all briefs filed in the case are due by Jan. 31 and that the justices would hear oral arguments on Feb. 8, Fox News reported.
At the same time, the high court issued a stay of Colorado’s order, instructing that state’s secretary of state to place Trump’s name back on the ballot pending the final decision in the case.
The Colorado court barred Trump under the 14th Amendment’s provision banning “officers” of the United States who engaged in “insurrection” from running for elected office. Supreme Court justices will likely consider the meaning of the phrase “engaged in insurrection” when making their decisions.
Meanwhile, a Wyoming district court judge dismissed a lawsuit aiming to remove Trump and Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis from the election ballots, which led to a celebration from Wyoming Republican Secretary of State Chuck Gray.
Retired lawyer Tim Newcomb filed a lawsuit in November, Newcomb v. Chuck Gray, with the Albany County District Court to remove Trump and Lummis from future ballots. He argued they were “traitors” to the Constitution regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol Building.
Post-Civil War ratification of the 14th Amendment prohibits “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office for officials who pledge allegiance to the Constitution. Aside from its ambiguous language and lack of specific reference to the presidency, this provision has seen only two applications since 1919.
Trump has condemned the 14th Amendment litigation as an abuse of the judicial process and denies any wrongdoing about January 6. He has entered a not-guilty plea to federal and state charges related to his efforts to reverse the 2020 election.
Before the unprecedented ruling, a lengthy list of parties, including over a dozen attorneys general from states controlled by Republicans, had filed briefs in a legal challenge to the constitutional eligibility of Trump to appear on Colorado’s 2024 ballot.
