The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Interesting Standing Dispute in Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 Case Against Trump
Also, "The Court's docket is not a social media feed."
From today's decision in Castro v. Warner, by Judge Irene Berger (S.D. W. Va.):
The Plaintiff, John Anthony Castro, brought this litigation seeking an injunction to prevent Secretary of State Andrew "Mac" Warner from placing Donald John Trump's name on the West Virginia Republican Primary ballot. He asserts that former President Trump is disqualified from serving as President pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Mr. Castro asserts that he has competitor standing as a candidate for the Republican nomination for President and based on his intention to continue as a general election candidate.
The Defendants move to dismiss on various grounds, including lack of standing. The arguments asserted by each Defendant with respect to standing overlap. In short, they contend that Mr. Castro has not suffered a concrete injury because there is no indication that he is in genuine competition for voters in the Republican presidential primary contest. They further contend that any injury is not traceable to Mr. Trump's placement on the ballot or redressable by the relief sought, because there is no indication that third-party voters would choose to support Castro if Mr. Trump did not appear on the ballot. Mr. Castro opposes the motions to dismiss and maintains that he alleged sufficient facts to establish standing….
To establish standing, "[t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." An injury in fact must be "an invasion of a legally protected interest that was concrete, particularized, and not conjectural or hypothetical." ... "At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice," but at summary judgment, "the plaintiff can no longer rest on such mere allegations, but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts."
Although the Defendants present their motions to dismiss as facial challenges, many of their arguments rest on whether the Plaintiff's allegations are plausible. For example, Mr. Trump's memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss argues that the "Plaintiff does not allege that he appears on any national polling" or "has secured a single dollar in campaign contributions," {The Defendant included reference to FEC campaign contribution records with respect to this argument} and that "there is no plausible claim that President Trump's inclusion on the ballot materially reduces Plaintiff's chances of being awarded West Virginia's delegates to the Republican National Convention." {The Court is aware that jurisdictional discovery and hearings have been conducted in similar case(s) filed by Mr. Castro. See, e.g., Castro v. Scanlan, et al., 23-cv-416-JL (D. N.H.). Accordingly, the Court anticipates that any necessary discovery can be completed in a brief period.} But the Plaintiff's polling position, campaign finance disclosures, and campaign activities are not part of the record in this matter.
West Virginia law establishes that candidates must file certificates of announcement for the upcoming primary between January 8 and January 27, 2024. If the Court has jurisdiction, further proceedings will be necessary to determine whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks. In the interests of reaching a conclusive resolution with respect to standing as expeditiously as possible, the Court finds that the pending motions to dismiss should be converted to motions for summary judgment, and the parties should be provided the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their positions. The Court will direct supplemental briefing to allow submission of evidence and further argument on the construed motions.
The court also added:
In directing supplemental briefing, the Court cautions the Plaintiff to focus on factual and legal arguments, rather than personal attacks. Although Mr. Castro receives some leeway in his filings as a pro-se litigant, despite his representation that he possesses a law degree, his filings contain numerous examples of clearly inappropriate attacks. {See, e.g., Document 24 (referring to "the U.S. Magistrate's willful blindness"); Document 28 (stating that "[i]f this Court had any self-respect, it would sanction WVGOP's frivolous filings"); Document 31 (expressing "serious concerns about the competency of the Clerk's Office" and "demand[ing] this Court have a discussion with the staff of the Clerk's Office to take their work more seriously" because a document filed by an unrelated party was briefly misidentified as being filed by Mr. Castro); Document 48 ("the U.S. Magistrate Judge's half-witted actions and inactions have brought to light the unconstitutional nature of the role of U.S. Magistrate Judges in our federal judicial system"); Document 53 ("Defendant Secretary of State is advised to read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."); Document 54 ("WVGOP's filings have already exhibited a gross degree of intellectual deficiency" and "This Court should be ashamed of itself for allowing WVGOP to make a mockery of it."); Document 63 ("Once again, Third-Party Plaintiff West Virginia Republican Party exhibits their gross lack of understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;" "WVGOP seems confused by this;" "WVGOP has exhibited a severe degree of intellectual deficiency"). This list is not exhaustive.} Discussion of the facts and the law will guide the Court's decisions, and derisive commentary is of little value to the Court in resolving motions. In several filings, Mr. Castro has attacked the character or intelligence of opposing counsel, as well as judges and court staff. The Court's docket is not a social media feed, and any future filing with ad hominem attacks, inappropriate statements about individuals involved in this litigation, or other snide and malicious comments will be stricken from the record.
Note that this is a separate matter from the Trump gag order dispute in the federal prosecution in D.C.; this relates to civility in court filings, a matter over which judges have much more authority than they do over public statements by the parties.
