Trump and the 14th Amendment: Here’s Where the Remaining State Challenges Stand After Maine and Colorado Rulings

Efforts aimed at knocking Republican 2024 presidential frontrunner Donald Trump off various state GOP primary ballots and eventually the general election ballot in November escalated this week as Massachusetts adds itself to the list of states.

Former attorney general hopeful Shannon Liss-Riordan and Free Speech For People filed a 90-page objection with the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission on behalf of five voters across the political spectrum. The group includes Democratic former Acting Boston Mayor Kim Janey. 

Their challenge comes just shortly after landmark legal rulings in both Colorado and Maine. 

The legal questions surrounding the former president's eligibility to serve again in the White House appear to be headed for a major showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Jan. 3, Trump filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, saying that more than 60 lawsuits or administrative challenges have been filed to block him from ballots citing the constitutional provision. 

Among the uncertainties: How sweeping will the case be that goes before the justices? The insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has never been tested before on a presidential candidate, and it's unclear if any of the additional pending legal challenges in other states will end up getting folded into any Supreme Court fight.

A decision could come as soon as Friday on whether the justices will even agree to take the case.

Here are where the other existing state lawsuits are in the respective state and federal court systems, according to review by The Messenger of the cases and a database maintained by Lawfare. 

Trump Disqualified, Decision Stayed Pending Appeal

Colorado: Anderson et al v. Griswold et al

In a 4-3 decision, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump is ineligible for the presidency under the Constitution’s insurrection clause and ordered he be removed from the state’s presidential primary ballot. The justices also paused their ruling until Jan. 4, 2024, in order to give Trump and the other parties to the case an opportunity to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Colorado Republican Party on Dec. 27 filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, with responses currently due by Jan. 29. However, the parties have pending motions to expedite the entire briefing schedule given the pressing deadlines for certifying the state's March 5 primary ballot. Trump’s team is expected to also file its own petition to appeal the decision before the Colorado Supreme Court's Jan. 4 deadline.

Maine: Challenges by Rosen et al

Shortly after Colorado’s decision, Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows released a 34-page ruling booting Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot under the insurrection clause. Bellows stated he was disqualified because the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection “occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of the outgoing President." Trump’s team filed an appeal in Maine Superior Court on Jan. 2.

Pending Challenges

Oregon: Nelson et al. v. Griffin-Valade

On Dec. 6, 2023, the group Free Speech For People, alongside Oregon co-counsel Jason Kafoury of Kafoury & McDougal and Daniel Meek, filed its challenge on behalf of voters in the state. The group behind the suit has filed other lawsuits in Minnesota and Michigan, both of which were ultimately unsuccessful in kicking Trump off the ballot. The suit is currently pending following the filing of the initial complaint in the Oregon Supreme Court. 

Nevada: Castro v. Aguilar et al

John Anthony Castro, a Texas-based write-in candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, filed a challenge to Trump in September in Nevada. Castro, who has made several unsuccessful attempts to run for office in Texas, is representing himself in the suit. He has also filed similar suits in other states, including Maine and Utah. After the initial complaint was filed on Sept. 5 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, lawyers for the former president filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 19. The case is currently pending before U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware, an appointee of President Barack Obama. 

Alaska: Castro* v. Dahlstrom et

Castro also filed a suit on Sept. 29 in Alaska in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The suit is currently pending before U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Kindred, an appointee of Trump. 

California: A.W. Clark v. Shirley N. Weber

Stephen Yagman, a civil-rights attorney, filed a lawsuit in September 2023 on behalf of a California voter, identified only as A.W. Clark, against Secretary of State Shirley Weber. The case was then dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October and a motion for reconsideration was filed later that month.

Wyoming: Newcomb* v. Gray

Tim Newcomb, a retired attorney from Wyoming, filed a suit in November against Secretary of State Chuck Gray to keep Trump and U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis off the state’s election ballots. 

Following the filing of the initial complaint on Nov. 1 in the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for Albany County, Wyoming, Trump requested to intervene and then had his lawyers file a motion to dismiss, saying the case lacks standing, misinterprets the 14th Amendment, and that Newcomb filed a “frivolous” lawsuit. Newcomb then filed a response, saying he didn’t object to Trump joining the case but did object to him having the case dismissed. The case is still pending. 

New Mexico: Castro v. Toulouse Oliver et al

Castro filed a challenge to Trump and New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver in September. Castro is representing himself in the suit. The initial complaint was filed on Sept. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. On Oct. 8, Trump’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The case is still pending before U.S. District Judge Matthew L. Garcia, an appointee of President Joe Biden.

North Carolina: Martin v. North Carolina State Board of Elections
Brian Martin, a voter in the state, filed a challenge to Trump’s eligibility against the North Carolina State Board of Elections. The board then dismissed the challenge the following day, citing a lack of authority to hear it. It found that he could petition the courts to hear the challenge. He has now filed a pending appeal.

Texas: Castro v. Trump et al

Castro filed a challenge to Trump, Charles Rettig, Maria Chapa Lopez, Tuan Dang Ma, Anne Craig-Pena, Anton Pukhalenko,  Estela Wells, John Turnicky, and John Doe in June in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

According to the initial complaint filed on June, 5, Rettig is the former Trump-appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Chapa Lopez is the former Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, Tuan Dang Ma is a “Trump-supporting” IRS-CI Special Agent, Craig-Pena is a “Trump-supporting” IRS Attorney with the Office of Chief Counsel, Pukhalenko is a “Trump-supporting” tax examiner with the Internal Revenue Service, Wells is a “Trump-supporting” tax examiner with the Internal Revenue Service, Turnicky is the former Head of Security for the Central Intelligence Agency and current housing program manager for the U.S. Department of Defense at the Joint Defense Facility at Pine Gap ("JDFPG"), and  John Doe “assisted in the conspiracy to unlawfully surveil, harass, and retaliate against Plaintiff.” Castro is representing himself in the suit.

Following the initial complaint, both Trump and non-Trump defendants Rettig, Lopez, Ma, Craig-Pena, Pukhalenko, Wells, and Turnicky filed a joint motion to dismiss on Nov. 13. Trump’s lawyers then filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 28. The case is still pending before Senior U.S. District Judge Terry R. Means, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.  

Wisconsin: Castro v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al

Castro also filed a suit on Sept. 29 in Wisconsin against Trump and the Wisconsin Elections Commission in the Wisconsin Circuit Court. The suit is currently pending before Circuit Court Judge Rhonda L. Lanford in Dane County. 

New Hampshire: Castro v. Scanlan et al.

Castro also filed a suit on Dec.1 in Wisconsin against Trump and New Hampshire’s Secretary of State David Scanlon in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The suit is currently pending. 

Louisiana: Reeb v. Ardoin

Ashley Reeb, a voter in the state, filed a challenge against Louisiana Secretary of State R. Kyle Ardoin in December 2023 with Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court. The suit is still pending.

South Carolina: Castro v. SC Elections Commission et al

Castro filed a challenge to Trump and South Carolina Elections Commission Executive Director Howard Knapp in September. Castro is representing himself in the suit. The initial complaint was filed on Sept. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. 

Knapp filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 3, requesting a dismissal of Castro’s complaint. A second motion to dismiss was filed by Trump on Oct. 6, joining the arguments made by Knapp in his motion and requesting a dismissal. The case is still pending before U.S. District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Vermont: Castro v. Copeland-Hanzas et al

Castro filed a challenge to Trump and Vermont’s Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas in October. Castro is representing himself in the suit. The initial complaint was filed on Oct. 2 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. The suit is currently pending before U.S. District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, an appointee of President Barack Obama. 

New York: 

Castro v. New York State Board of Elections et al

Castro filed a challenge to Trump and the New York State Board of Elections in October. Castro is representing himself in the suit. The initial complaint was filed on Oct. 10, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

A motion to dismiss was filed on Oct. 26 by lawyers for Trump, and Castro filed his own notice of a voluntary dismissal of the case. The suit is currently pending before U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, an appointee of President George W. Bush. 

Dewald v. Trump et al

Jerome Dewald, a Republican attorney in New York, filed a suit in the Northern District of New York in September 2023.  The initial complaint, filed on Sept. 5, names Trump, New York Secretary of State Robert J. Rodriguez, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis, Ray Smith, Jeffrey Clark, Michael Roman, Misty Hampton, Robert Cheeley, Scott Hall, Stephen Lee, Trevian Kutti, David Dhafer,

Shawn Still, and Cathy Latham as defendants. Dewald is representing himself in the suit. 

Dewald said he believes that having Trump on the primary ballot denies Republicans in New Yorkers the chance to vote for someone else.

At a Nov. 30 conference, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, an appointee of President Barack Obama, issued an order giving the plaintiff until Feb. 12 to serve all the defendants with the lawsuit. A motion from Trump to dismiss the case is on hold.

Potential Challenges

New York: 

State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal pressed Republican state election officials in New York to prevent Trump from appearing on the state’s April 2 primary ballot. Hoylman-Sigal said in an interview, “New York has to take a stand as Colorado has already done for the 14th Amendment.”

 “I’m concerned — as others should be — that if we don’t enforce Trump’s disqualification, there’s a real danger that he could incite insurrection again.”

Hoylman-Sigal’s efforts could amount to the state’s third challenge against the former president. 

Dismissed, On Appeal

Arizona: Castro v. Fontes et al

Castro filed a challenge to Trump and Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in September. Castro is representing himself in the suit. The initial complaint was filed on Sept. 5, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. 

Following a motion to dismiss that was filed by lawyers for Trump on Oct. 13, a federal court in the state dismissed the lawsuit. In a 12-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Douglas L. Rayes said Castro "lacks standing to bring his claim." Rayes disputing whether Castro would suffer a “competitive injury” if Trump appeared on Arizona’s ballot next year and said the facts “do not show that Castro is truly competing with Trump,” with regards to his presidential campaign. 

Castro then submitted an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Dec. 8. The matter is currently pending. 

Florida: Castro v. Trump

Castro also filed a suit on Jan. 1, 2023 in Floria against Trump in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division. The suit was then dismissed on June 26 for lack of Article III ripeness and standing. Judge Aileen Cannon, who is also overseeing Trump’s classified documents case, argued that because Castro has not “alleged concrete harm or ripeness as required under Article III,” the court doesn’t have to “consider the merits of his additional arguments.”  Castro then filed a currently pending appeal on Sept. 20. 

West Virginia: Castro v. Warner et al

Castro filed a challenge to Trump and West Virginia’s Secretary of State Andrew Warner in September. Castro is representing himself in the suit. The initial complaint was filed on Sept. 7, 2023, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Four motions to dismiss were filed in the matter: lawyers for Trump filed theirs on Oct. 6, Warner’s was filed on Oct. 12, the West Virginia Republican Party filed its on Oct. 10, and the State of West Virginia filed its on Oct. 12.  A dismissal and an order for the case to be stricken from the docket was filed by Irene C. Berger, the district judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, on Dec. 21. An appeal by Castro to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was then filed on Dec. 26.

Dismissed Without Appeal

Virginia: Perry-Bey et al v. Trump

Two voters from Virginia, Roy Perry-Bey and Carlos Howard, filed a challenge to Trump in July 2023. Perry-Bey and Howard are representing themselves in the suit. The initial complaint was filed on July 31, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A motion to dismiss was filed on Oct. 25 by Trump. In the filing, Trump requests a dismissal and injunctive relief with prejudice because Perry-Bey and Howard failed to “properly serve President Trump, lack standing to bring their claims, present nonjusticiable political questions, and do not allege facts sufficient to state a claim.” 

A second motion to dismiss was filed on Nov. 21 by the Republican Party of Virginia, citing a failure “to state a claim.” The filing also outlines why Perry-Bey and Howard “lack standing to bring their constitutional disqualification claim and why the Constitution does not provide to the Plaintiffs the cause of action they seek.”

A federal judge on Jan. 1 then dismissed the suit, noting that "procedural deficiencies that have plagued" the plaintiff's prosecution, including one instance where the omission of one plaintiff's email address and phone number on filings "prevents defendants from communication with him in a timely manner."

Minnesota: Growe et al v. Simon

A group of voters in the state, including Democratic former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe, filed a legal challenge against Trump in September 2023. The lawsuit, led by Free Speech For the People, was filed with the state’s Supreme Court. 

The court then rejected the suit in November 2023 but said the challengers could try again to block him from the general election ballot if he wins the GOP nomination. 

The high court wrote in its four-page ruling, “There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.”  it said there “there is no error to correct” at this stage.

Michigan: LaBrant et al v. Benson

Free Speech For People, on behalf of a group of voters in the state, filed a lawsuit in September 2023 to force Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to keep Trump off the state’s ballot. Trump then sued in September to prevent Benson from refusing to put him on the state’s ballot for the primary and general elections. 

Court of Claims Judge James Redford rejected the group’s arguments in November that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection meant that the court had to rule him ineligible for the office of the presidency. Redford said that because he followed state law in qualifying for the primary ballot, he could not remove Trump. He added that Congress should decide whether he is disqualified under the constitutional provision.

The group then filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court that was refused, with the court saying the case should remain before the state court of appeals. It held that the case should not immediately move to the state’s highest court as the group requested in its appeal. 

Davis v. Wayne Co Election Commission

An activist in Wayne County, Robert David, and a group of plaintiffs represented by former Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer filed lawsuits arguing that either election officials, including Benson, or the court should find that Trump is disqualified. 

The Court of Appeals then ruled that there is no support for the finding that the election commission has a duty to  "independently determine whether Trump is disqualified under the Insurrection Clause.” It also found that a lower court was correct in ruling that the election commission isn’t barred from printing primary ballots with Trump’s name on them. 

Rhode Island: Castro v. Amore et al

Castro filed a challenge to Trump and the Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore in October 2023. A federal judge in November then tossed the suit out, citing a 1st Circuit Court Appeals ruling on Nov. 21 that found that Castro lacked standing in an almost-identical case in New Hampshire. McConnell Jr. also found that he failed to show he was a “direct and current competitor at the time that he filed his complaint,” and that as a result, he was unable to establish that he would suffer an injury-in-fact if Trump stayed on the ballot.