Judge Overseeing Case to Remove Trump From Ballot Issues Huge Order

by Jessica
4.1K views

According to Conservative Brief News report on Monday, September 25, a state judge in Colorado has taken significant steps, invoking the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment.

Judge Sarah B. Wallace of the Second Judicial District has already issued a major ruling in the case, as reported by Man And Home.

Judge Wallace’s proactive approach includes safeguarding the safety of all involved parties, including herself and her staff, through the issuance of a protective order explicitly prohibiting threats and intimidation during the ongoing litigation.

During a recent hearing, Judge Wallace expressed her understanding of the concerns surrounding the case, citing the need for precaution given the contentious nature of similar cases.

Representing Trump in this matter, Scott Gessler, a former Colorado secretary of state, opposed the protective order, arguing that it is redundant since threats and intimidation against witnesses are already illegal.

The core of the lawsuit seeks to disqualify Trump from the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment’s clause, which bars individuals who engaged in insurrection after swearing an oath to the Constitution from running for office.

This case revolves around Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6th, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

What makes this Colorado case particularly significant is that it is the first of its kind filed by a group with substantial legal resources.

It is widely expected that this issue will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, marking the first time the highest court in the land will rule on the insurrection provision within the 14th Amendment.

Judge Wallace has not only focused on the federal aspect of the case but has also scheduled a date to hear arguments regarding whether Trump should be disqualified from the Colorado ballot under state law, which stipulates certain qualifications for candidates.

Her decision on this matter is expected soon, providing ample time for appeals to both the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court before the primaries and the general election.

Trump’s legal team is preparing to file two motions to dismiss the lawsuit. One of these motions will assert that the litigation attempts to infringe upon the former president’s free speech rights. Judge Wallace has also scheduled a date to hear these arguments.

The request for the protective order came from attorney Sean Grimsley, who represents the plaintiffs in the case. Grimsley pointed to a recent move by special counsel Jack Smith, who sought a gag order against Trump due to alleged threats made during Smith’s prosecution of Trump over his challenge to the 2020 presidential election results.

Grimsley emphasized Trump’s use of social media to issue statements concerning witnesses and the judicial system.

Simultaneously, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to consider arguments by Democrats and some Republicans on whether Trump can be barred from holding elective office under the 14th Amendment.

The high court will deliberate on whether to accept the case, known as John Castro v. Donald Trump, during their September 29 conference, with a final decision expected by October 9, as reported by 1945.

John Castro, a Texas tax attorney and declared Republican candidate for the presidential nomination, alleges that Trump participated in an insurrection against the U.S. government by organizing the January 6, 2021 rally.

Castro’s initial lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in June. Castro, who previously ran as a Democrat, is currently campaigning as a write-in candidate.

In his petition to the high court, Castro cited the decision as a dismissal based on his lack of constitutional standing to sue another candidate allegedly unqualified to hold public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The legal battles surrounding Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 ballot continue to unfold, promising to be a landmark case with far-reaching implications.

Related Posts