OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on arguments that Democrats and some Republicans are making that former President Donald Trump should be barred from running again for office under a provision of the 14th Amendment.
The high court will consider whether or not to take the case, John Castro v. Donald Trump, during their Sept. 29 conference. A final decision on whether to accept it will be made by Oct. 9, according to the site 1945.
“Castro, a Texas tax attorney, claims that Trump participated in an insurrection against the U.S. government by organizing his rally against certification of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. He is a declared candidate for the Republican nomination and has previously run for various offices. Castro ran for his first race in 2004 as a Democrat. He is currently running as a write-in candidate,” the site noted further.
His initial lawsuit was tossed out by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in June, the federal judge appointed by Trump who is also overseeing his classified documents case in Miami.
“The decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissing Petitioner John Anthony Castro’s civil action on the grounds that he lacks constitutional standing to sue another candidate who is allegedly unqualified to hold public office in the United States pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the candidate wrote in his Writ of Certiorari to the high court.
He has claimed that Trump’s appearance on the ballot harms his ability to collect small-dollar donations for his campaign.
1945 noted that, according to Federal Election Commission records, Castro has raised $0 in donations, but the AI tech company founder has loaned his campaign $20 million in personal funds.
According to his Supreme Court brief, Castro said his objective is to “display his executive leadership by single-handedly ending Trump’s political career.”
1945 notes further:
Castro claims that Trump waited 187 minutes to tell the rioters who stormed the Capitol to leave despite the fact that the former president repeatedly tweeted for calm within the first hour of the riot. His original suit claimed that Trump incited an “insurrection” by saying his followers should “Fight like hell,” which likely was a figurative reference considering that he talked about “peacefully” walking to the Capitol.
He also claims that Trump gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists when he told those who showed up for his rally and those at the Capitol that they were “very special.” Castro’s additional claim that Trump is a supporter of an insurrection is based on Trump’s promise that he would pardon prosecuted January 6 rioters.
Castro has been attempting to thwart Trump’s third bid for the White House since February 2022, according to his Facebook page after filing complaints with the Federal Election Commission.
“Tomorrow’s federal lawsuit against the FEC and Trump is just the beginning. I will not rest until Trump is banned from public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment along with every federal, state, and local public official that expressed support for the January 6 Insurrection. #StormIsComing #IAmTheStorm,” Castro wrote in a Feb. 10, 2022 post.
“The Ukraine Crisis is the making of multiple presidencies, including Trump. No doubt Obama failed to respond to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea. But Trump had 4 years to do something and instead did nothing. Now he’s calling Putin a ‘genius’ and rooting for him?! TREASON,” Castro wrote later in the month.
Legal experts have repeatedly weighed in on the claim that Trump should be ineligible to hold federal office again under the Constitution.
One of them, Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, “noted that no formal mechanism exists to determine that a President of the United States of America participated in an ‘insurrection’ in a recent newsletter.”
