A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit in Florida claiming Donald Trump could not run for president under the 14th Amendment.

The lawsuit, brought by a Florida tax attorney, questioned Trump’s ability to appear on the Florida presidential primary ballot due to J6.

Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, an Obama appointee, said the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to challenge Trump’s qualifications to seek office.

“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge defendant’s qualifications for seeking the presidency, as the injuries alleged are not cognizable and not particular to them,” the judge wrote, according to The Washington Times.

The Washington Times reports:

Lawrence Caplan of Boynton Beach argued in a federal court filing with the Southern District of Florida that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prevents someone from holding power in the U.S. government if that individual has rebelled against the government through an insurrection or aided its enemies.

In his filing, Mr. Caplan refers to it as the “disqualification clause” and says it can operate independently of criminal proceedings. But he noted that special counsel Jack Smith has indicted Mr. Trump over the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and allegedly attempting to undermine the 2020 election.

The legal filing also noted Georgia prosecutors have charged the ex-president and his allies with election interference, among other allegations.

“President Trump’s efforts both in Washington, as well as in Georgia and perhaps other states, as well as the consequential assault on the U.S. Capitol, put Trump at the center of the disqualification clause, and as a result of which, make him ineligible to ever serve in federal office again,” Mr. Caplan wrote.

“An individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office,” Rosenberg added, according to The Palm Beach Post.

More from The Palm Beach Post:

Caplan did not comment on the judge’s ruling Thursday. But in an Aug. 25 interview with the USA TODAY-Florida network, Caplan said he believed his lawsuit would most likely be challenged on the issue of standing, perhaps because he was not, say, a candidate who could argue direct harm.

But he insisted in that interview that it didn’t require profound knowledge of the U.S. Constitution to see why Trump is ineligible in light of Jan. 6.

“The 14th amendment is very clear that you do not need a conviction. You need to be accused and obviously there has to be a rationale for the accusation,” Caplan said at the time. “I read the amendment and I read the facts of the indictment, and they match very closely.”

Rosenberg’s decision comes as other states and legal minds are closely scrutinizing Trump’s eligibility under the post-Civil War, Reconstruction-era constitutional amendment.

Advertisement

The New Hampshire attorney general’s office said this week it is “carefully reviewing the legal issues” presented by the amendment and Trump’s 2024 campaign for the Republican nomination.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.