Federal Judge Crushes Attempt to Disqualify Trump from Virginia Ballot

‘Plaintiffs have totally failed to demonstrate how their alleged injuries are traceable to the conduct of defendants,’ U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said.

By Jack Phillips

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to bar former President Donald Trump from Virginia’s 2024 primary and general election ballots, rejecting arguments similar to those used to temporarily prevent him from appearing on ballots in Colorado and Maine.

In a ruling issued in late December, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema wrote that the plaintiffs—two activists—who filed the lawsuit against President Trump lacked legal standing.

Roy Perry-Bey and Carlos Howard claimed that the former commander-in-chief should be disqualified under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals from running for office if they have engaged in a rebellion or insurrection against the U.S. government.

Judge Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, found that the “plaintiffs have totally failed to demonstrate how their alleged injuries are traceable to the conduct of defendants.”

“At least five additional federal courts have concluded that citizens attempting to disqualify individuals—including former President Trump—from participating in elections or from holding public office based on the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol lacked standing,” she wrote in her 13-page ruling.

The plaintiffs relied heavily on the rulings made in Maine and Colorado in late December, the judge noted.

“Plaintiffs’ attempt to achieve a result similar to that in Colorado cannot occur in this Court because of the nature of their direct federal constitutional claims and because of the constraints imposed by Article III that limit the jurisdiction of federal courts,” Judge Brinkema wrote.

In the ruling, the judge noted that the plaintiffs also wrote that they “were unable to file timely oppositions” to the motions to dismiss because they needed “additional time due to debilitating depression making it more difficult to prepare an effective response.”

However, in subsequent days, the plaintiffs filed more than a dozen motions, which the judge said implies that they “were, in fact, capable of responding” to the earlier motions to dismiss the case.

Maine Secretary of State Discusses Why She Ruled Trump Ineligible From Presidential Ballot

She also criticized the plaintiffs for failing to include their full contact information.

The lawsuit also named Virginia election officials as defendants, which prompted lawyers for Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares’ office to ask the court to dismiss the case on technical grounds. Those attorneys argued that the challenge was based on a misinterpretation of Virginia’s primary system.

Colorado and Maine

The Colorado Supreme Court on Dec. 20, in a divided ruling, ordered the former president to be removed from the state’s primary and general election ballots under their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The judges said that President Trump engaged in an “insurrection” for his activity around the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach and added that it doesn’t “reach these conclusions lightly.”

The former president has not been charged with or convicted of insurrection, although he faces charges in multiple jurisdictions.

Days after that, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, unilaterally acted to remove President Trump from the ballot under similar pretexts.

“I do not reach this conclusion lightly,” Ms. Bellows wrote, echoing the Colorado court’s ruling. She said that she is “mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3.”

Republicans and the Trump 2024 campaign have appealed both decisions. The former president’s campaign said that the ballot rulings constitute election interference. Some legal experts have said that both rulings demonstrate the need for the Supreme Court to issue an order.

“It is clear that these decisions are going to keep popping up, and inconsistent decisions reached (like the many states keeping Trump on the ballot over challenges) until there is final and decisive guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, wrote in response to the Maine decision.

“It seems a certainty that SCOTUS will have to address the merits sooner or later.”

The Trump campaign issued a statement hailing Judge Brinkema’s ruling in Virginia.

“President Trump remains undefeated in 14th Amendment ballot challenges in federal courts with today’s ruling in the Eastern District of Virginia,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement to multiple news outlets on Dec. 29.

“Thus far, federal courts in West Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida, Arizona, and Rhode Island, as well as state courts in Michigan and Minnesota have jettisoned these bad-faith, politically motivated attempts to steal the 2024 election by disqualifying President Trump from the ballot,” he added.

The former president “will ultimately prevail in these unconstitutional attempts to steal the election and Make America Great Again,” his statement concluded.