A federal judge in Nevada has dismissed a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state’s ballot, ruling that the political challenger lacked standing because he was “creating his own injury.”
John Anthony Castro, a long-shot GOP presidential candidate, has filed and lost several lawsuits against President Trump’s ballot eligibility in multiple states, citing the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
In a four-page ruling on Monday, Judge Gloria Navarro determined that Mr. Castro did not have standing to file the lawsuit in Nevada as a political competitor, noting that this was in line with the rulings of “multiple federal courts” that found the challenger “is creating his own injury in order to manufacture standing.”
Judge Navarro cited an October article from The Associated Press in which Mr. Castro admitted he had no serious intention to pursue a presidential campaign. Mr. Castro submitted the article to the court for consideration of his standing; however, it ended up working against his claim.
“To have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must have suffered a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury in fact that was caused by the defendant’s challenged conduct and is redressable by a favorable decision,” Judge Navarro wrote in his ruling.
According to court documents, Mr. Castro claimed the injury of “receiving fewer votes than he would if Trump was prohibited from appearing on the ballot.”
Judge Navarro noted that multiple federal courts have already dismissed Mr. Castro’s 14th Amendment claims for lack of standing without addressing the merits of whether President Trump is eligible to run for office.
Furthermore, at least five federal courts have specifically rejected Mr. Castro’s political competitor standing argument.
“In rejecting his political competitor’s standing argument, courts have found that Castro improperly manufactured his standing merely to file this lawsuit,” Judge Navarro wrote.
Mr. Castro’s challenge only pertained to the state’s primary, where President Trump is not a participant, opting instead for the state GOP’s rival caucus.
Despite the dismissal, Judge Navarro did not rule on the merits of the challenge.
Trump Campaign: ‘Another Bogus, Bad-Faith’ Lawsuit
In response to the Nevada dismissal, the Trump campaign issued a statement on Tuesday, calling the failed lawsuit “another bogus, bad-faith, crooked Joe Biden-engineered attempt to deprive Americans” of their right to vote for their preferred candidate.
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung hailed the ruling as “not only a victory for President Trump but a victory for all Americans and the people of Nevada.”
“President Trump remains undefeated in federal court against these cynical efforts to interfere in the 2024 election. Courts in eleven states have now dismissed similar, pathetic, 14th Amendment ballot cases,” Mr. Cheung said.
“Make no mistake, each and every one of these ‘ballot-challenges’ are blatant attempts to steal the election for Crooked Joe Biden and disenfranchise over 100 million American voters.
“President Trump is the leading candidate for not only the Republican primary but the general election, and his opponents are desperate. Rest assured that he will fight each and every one of these disgraceful attacks on American democracy, he will win, and we will all Make America Great Again,” he added.
Judge Navarro’s decision adds to the list of unsuccessful challenges brought by Mr. Castro, who had filed similar 14th Amendment claims against President Trump in multiple states, including New Hampshire and Florida, where the cases have already been dismissed.
In the case of Mr. Castro’s New Hampshire legal challenge, the judge wrote in dismissing that case that Mr. Castro “is creating his own injury in order to manufacture standing to challenge Trump’s eligibility to run for president.”
Mr. Castro responded to the ruling in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times.
“The federal courts are so fearful to address these vital issues that they’re not considering the impact of their decision. Imagine the judge’s logic being applied to the Southern Baptists in the 1960s who went into ‘whites only’ restaurants,” Mr. Castro said. “The judge’s logic could be used to say that they didn’t go into the restaurant to enjoy a meal; they weren’t ‘real’ customers. Instead, they went into the restaurant in bad faith to voluntarily incur an injury in order to manufacture standing to challenge racial segregation laws.”
Mr. Castro asserted that civil disobedience, or “taking a stand based on principle,” is a time-honored American tradition.
“Yet, what the courts have now said is that campaigning for president based on principles is bad faith while campaigning for president to be a mouthpiece for corporate oligarchs and special interests is good faith,” he added. “This Orwellian approach is a threat to both sides of the political spectrum. It guarantees that no commoner can ever challenge the political class.”
Mr. Castro contended that, with respect to the lawsuits he has filed around the country against President Trump, “Judges are supposed to apply the law without fear or favor,” however, he asserted that “the federal judiciary has failed at this with these cases.”
President Trump is facing several 14th Amendment challenges nationwide.
The question of his eligibility to hold office is now before the U.S. Supreme Court after the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified him from the state’s ballot concerning the Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021, and citing an interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars individuals who have assisted rebellion from holding office.
President Trump has consistently denounced these attempts as political interference, and his legal team argues that the 14th Amendment clause does not apply to the presidency.
From The Epoch Times
