SCOTUS Won’t Review RULING that Removed New Mexico Official from Office Over January 6th Riot
Written by: Howard Beale
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Couy Griffin, a convicted member of the Jan. 6th rioters, who sought to reverse his disqualification from public office in New Mexico under the Constitution's "insurrection clause."
Griffin's petition to consider his case was denied on Monday, upholding the rulings of lower courts in New Mexico that found him ineligible to hold office.
Griffin, a former member of the Otero County board of commissioners, was convicted in 2022 of misdemeanor offenses related to his participation in the breach of the Capitol grounds. He was subsequently ordered to be removed from office. As the founder of “Cowboys for Trump,” Griffin had also been an early and vocal believer in election fraud.
New Mexico county commissioner Couy Griffin, who participated in Jan 6th riot, loses Supreme Court appeal. (Griffin “X”)
This is the Supreme Court's first action related to the "insurrection clause" since it overturned a decision by the Colorado state Supreme Court to bar Donald Trump from the ballot. In that ruling, the justices concluded that states do not have unilateral power to disqualify candidates for federal office but have the authority to do so for state offices.
In their decision, the justices wrote, "We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office." Griffin's disqualification under the "insurrection clause" of the 14th Amendment marked the first instance in modern times where an official was barred from office based on this provision, which was originally passed after the Civil War to prevent ex-Confederates from assuming power.
However, the text of the amendment leaves room for ambiguity regarding the enforcement and determination of who qualifies as an insurrectionist. The Supreme Court's ruling on Griffin's case was divided, with the justices determining that only Congress has the authority to enforce the provision against federal office seekers.
Griffin's case was seen as an early test of the applicability of the "insurrection clause" to the Jan. 6th rioters. The liberal government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) supported the lawsuit that led to Griffin's disqualification. CREW was also involved in the lawsuit in Colorado that initially disqualified Trump, which was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this month.
Griffin expressed his disappoint in a text message to The Guardian, noting: "As I sit right now the only office I can run for is the executive office. Trump needs a vice president who can stand strong through the hardest of times. And I can only pray I'd be considered."
READ MORE:
HISTORIANS SUPPORT COLORADO'S ATTEMPT TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT
COULD COLORADO KEEP TRUMP OFF 2024 BALLOT UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT?
While Griffin is the second member of the Jan. 6th rioters to be convicted at trial, it is important to note that he did not enter the Capitol building. He marched with a group of supporters and documented his approach, including climbing barricades and retaining walls, as well as reaching the scaffolding outside the building.
The Supreme Court's decision to reject Griffin's appeal has significant implications for his future political aspirations and sends a clear message regarding the consequences of participating in Jan. 6th.
Are you enjoying THE LOBBY? Our stories are only possible because of generous contributions from our readers. Please consider chipping in today. Thank you!