Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently unanimously ruled that the state of Colorado could not remove former President Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 Presidential Ballot on the basis of his actions on January 6, 2021, the Court declined to consider an appeal by a former county commissioner from New Mexico who was expelled from office due to his participation in the January 6th Capitol riot.
Background of the Case
Couy Griffin, who once served as an Otero County, New Mexico commissioner, became nationally recognized for his support of then-President Donald Trump. He was known for organizing horseback caravans that promoted Trump’s political agenda. Griffin’s involvement in the Capitol riot led to his unique status as the only elected official so far removed from office due to the events of that day.
Historic Disqualification
In a 2022 trial held by a state district court in New Mexico, Griffin was disqualified from holding public office. This was the first instance in over a century where a disqualification under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause” provisions—originally crafted to prevent former Confederates from serving in public office—was applied.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Candidacy Restrictions
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified the distinction between federal and state or local candidacy restrictions. It stated that while federal restrictions do not apply, states have the right to disqualify individuals from state or local offices. This principle was outlined in an unsigned opinion by the justices.
Griffin’s Federal Conviction
Separate from his state trial, Griffin was convicted in federal court for entering a restricted area of the Capitol grounds during the riot. He received a 14-day prison sentence, which was considered served due to time spent in custody post-arrest. Griffin contends his actions were non-violent and aimed at leading a prayer, unaware of the area’s restrictions.
Legal Actions and Implications
The legal actions against Griffin were initiated by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, representing three New Mexico residents. This move is part of broader efforts to hold state and local officials accountable for their roles in the January 6 events.
The Nature of Griffin’s Participation
A New Mexico judge identified the Capitol breach as an insurrection and ruled that Griffin’s participation supported the insurrection, albeit non-violently. This contributed to delaying Congress’s election certification process.
Appeal and Constitutional Debate
Griffin’s appeal raised significant constitutional questions, including whether a state court, rather than Congress, can enforce the 14th Amendment’s anti-insurrection clause. It also brought up concerns about free speech rights.
Defense Arguments
Griffin’s defense argued that his actions, intended as peaceful prayer, should not be construed as insurrection. They claimed the court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for the interpretation of actions on Capitol grounds.
Judicial Response
The trial judge dismissed Griffin’s free speech defense as self-serving, highlighting his role in spreading false claims about the 2020 election and inciting the crowd at the Capitol.
Supreme Court’s Dismissal
The Supreme Court opted not to review Griffin’s case, effectively upholding the lower court’s decision without comment. Griffin criticized this decision as a severe blow to democracy.
Griffin’s Political Stance
Despite the legal setbacks, Griffin remains politically active. He recently spoke at a Republican event in Wyoming, portraying himself as a victim of political persecution and celebrating the patriotism displayed on January 6.
Cowboys for Trump
Griffin founded Cowboys for Trump, a group that staged horseback parades to support conservative causes. He has faced legal challenges related to this group as well, including charges for failing to register and disclose donors.
Reflections on the Election and Democracy
Griffin’s case, stemming from his actions on January 6 and subsequent legal battles, underscores ongoing tensions in American democracy. His continued activism and the legal and political debates surrounding his case reflect the complex aftermath of the Capitol riot and the challenges of reconciling free speech with actions deemed insurrectionary.
