By
The Supreme Court just rejected an appeal from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was barred from office after he was convicted in a Jan. 6-related case. Why, you might wonder, wouldn’t he benefit from the recent ruling approving Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility despite the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban?
The court didn’t explain why it rejected Cowboys for Trump co-founder Couy Griffin’s petition Monday. But an important distinction is that Griffin’s case involved a state-level office, rather than federal office or the presidency. Indeed, the Trump v. Anderson ruling said:
We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
As I wrote when Griffin’s petition was pending, after Trump v. Anderson was argued but before it was decided, justices at Trump’s hearing “seemed more bothered about federal offices and the presidency, which might not help Griffin.” That turned out to be the case. However, under the Supreme Court’s logic, Griffin should be clear to run for federal office if he wants to — especially the presidency.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.