On January 3, a federal judge in California took action to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to prevent former President Donald Trump from participating in the 2024 Republican primary ballot in the state.
District Judge David Carter not only granted the motion to dismiss but did so “with prejudice,” signifying that the case cannot be reintroduced in the same court, according to court documents.
The lawsuit was initiated by one of the plaintiffs who claimed to have suffered “emotional injury” as a result of the breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Alleging severe emotional distress from witnessing the events unfold through various media channels, the plaintiff sought to bar Trump from being listed on California’s ballot.
However, the judge ruled that the lawsuit was filed beyond the permissible two-year statute of limitations from the time of the incident. Judge Carter, appointed by President Clinton and recognized for previous rulings against President Trump in a separate case, released his decision online, and it was shared by former California Republican National Committee Chair Harmeet Dhillon.
“The remnants of the last California case to keep President Trump off the ballot here were dismissed today by Judge David O. Carter!!” she wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Jan. 3.
In recent developments, a series of lawsuits spanning different states have been initiated with the aim of barring President Trump from appearing on the 2024 election ballot. These legal challenges contend that the former president’s actions qualify as “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—a provision drafted in the aftermath of the Civil War.
While legal victories have been secured in Maine and Colorado, there is widespread anticipation that higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, may intervene and potentially overturn these decisions.
Shortly before the Christmas holiday, Colorado’s highest court ruled against Trump’s inclusion on the state’s primary ballot, prompting a swift appeal to the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, Maine’s Secretary of State, Democrat Shenna Bellows, independently opted to exclude President Trump from the ballot, triggering a subsequent appeal.
In response to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung criticized the move, characterizing it as a favor towards alleged left-leaning interference in the election process. Cheung accused the court of infringing upon the rights of Colorado voters to choose their preferred candidate, framing it as a maneuver benefiting Joe Biden.
Legal experts speculate that the U.S. Supreme Court might take up these cases, potentially ruling against the plaintiffs on procedural grounds. However, the resolution of the intricate issues related to the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause remains uncertain if the court decides to address them directly.
“It seems a certainty that SCOTUS will have to address the merits sooner or later,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California–Los Angeles, wrote on his website last month, referring to the Supreme Court.
