Alaska judge tosses man’s case against Trump being on Alaska ballot


A federal lawsuit filed in Alaska to keep former President Donald Trump’s name from being able to appear on the ballot this year as a presidential candidate was round-filed on Friday by federal judge Josh Kindred, who mainstream media reporters were quick to point out is a Trump judicial appointee.

Plaintiff John Castro, part of the Never Trump Movement, sued Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and Trump, saying Trump is “ineligible to pursue or hold any public office in the United States pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution …”

Judge Kindred pointed out in his ruling that the same lawsuit has been thrown out in other courts across America because Castro lacks standing to bring such a lawsuit. To have standing, a plaintiff must show “injury in fact” to his own legal interests.

Castro’s legal interests are many and varied: The New York Times describes his him as being involved in filing a “dizzying array of legal disputes.” Castro was indicted this month on 33 felony charges of tax fraud.

Castro has filed dozens of these unsuccessful lawsuits to bump Trump from the 2024 election. The man has served as his own legal counsel, having no support from constitutional attorneys and no formal legal training. Castro has been a perennial candidate for various seats, sometimes as a Democrat, other times as a Republican.

His case to stop Trump from being a candidate was dismissed by a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, went through the 11th Court of Appeals, and landed at the U.S. Supreme Court; the Supreme Court appeal file can be found at this link.

Castro alleges that Trump is ineligible to “pursue and hold public office given his alleged provision of aid or comfort to the convicted criminals and insurrectionist that violently attacked our United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. To delay this case risks a constitutionally ineligible individual holding public office in direct conflict with the United States Constitution. As such, it is unquestionably a matter of imperative public importance to such a grave extent as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”

The U.S. Supreme Court last year denied Castro’s request to move the case forward on the calendar.

Some lawsuits meant to keep Trump from advancing have been more successful in state courts, but no such lawsuit has been filed with the State of Alaska court system.

However, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump took part in an insurrection, and thus is disqualified due to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Maine’s Secretary of State disqualified Trump on her own. The Trump campaign is appealing these adverse rulings.


  1. The whole Trump thing is very similar to the Ted Stevens case, so most Alaskans should see. The voters should decide regardless. I think they are at least getting an education lately of the level of corruption involved in elections. By all parties.

    • Read it, No person shall . . . hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same

      • It was a riot, (mob gone bad) like BLM or Antifa.
        Up to 120,000 showed up in DC that day, 1200 committed crimes & were arrested … 1%
        Insurrections/ rebellions require weapons & dead people
        1 person was killed that day; an unarmed, female Vet, shot by a cop w/ a bad employment record.
        A riot is not a rebellion or an insurrection.
        DJT said: “…. will soon be marching to the capitol to peacefully & patriotically make your voices heard”
        He also said: “….. we have to primary the hell out of those who do not fight”
        Do “peacefully” … “patriotically” and “primary the hell out of” sound like the words of an insurrectionist?
        Perhaps to a rabid leftist.

      • Aside from the media narrative, and your personal opinion, what do you have that demonstrates Trump engaged in a insurrection or a rebellion?
        What… he gave a speech? Did you actually listen to the speech? Or read a transcript? If that is engaging in an insurrection, pretty much every speech ever given by every politician is the same crime.
        Or, is it because he did not act swiftly enough to tell everyone to go home? Oh… he did, but, why let reality ruin your narrative.

      • It’s all the words you leave out in those tricky little … thingies peppered through your comment that tell the tale you wish to be untold. Fortunately I have a well worn Pocket Constitution and know it well.

  2. Seems like there ought to be some sort of penalty applied to such frivolous lawsuits that do nothing for these attention seekers and merely plug up the legal system with legal spam…

    • There’s a saying the affect.,…,”He who casts the first stone needs to clean up his own mess first.” Reading his list of his own indictments makes me wonder how he got the nerve to complain about Trump or anybody else..He has too many of HIS OWN problems before he starts to cut down others.

      • There were only 17 ballots that had the spelling g you indicate. All the others were marginal, many just flat non-phonetic.

    • I would never go to the bank on Alaskan’s ability to “write in” anything. Maybe 50 years ago, but not now.

      • Worked for Lisa and they even counted the ballots that misspelled her name or just wrote ‘Lisa’ if I recall correctly..speaking of ‘recall’, how ’bout that Peltola, eh!?!

        • You can’t recall federal representatives. The only way to give her the proverbial boot, is to vote her out, or her getting expelled by her fellow house members like that Santos fellow! (Fat chance of that)

    • As long as we have this RC Voting, there will be misread votes, and illegal
      maneuvering to change the vote. Write-in’s will also be made on the other side. The misreading of the votes will continue..

  3. Ever noticed how the “defenders of democracy” do everything possible to keep people from actually practicing it?

  4. Doesn’t one actually have to be charged and convicted of “insurrection” before further legal action can be taken based on so-called insurrection?
    Then again, apparently you can defame someone by refuting their unsupported claim of rape.
    Yeah… that is the 3rd world banana republic we are living in these days. If you think you might lose the upcoming election, have your opponent removed from the ballot, jailed, or assassinated.

    • Frankly I’m surprised they haven’t tried to kill Trump.

      If they really think him existential threat to “ democracy”, it’s the next logical (to them) step.

    • According to the constitution, an insurrectionist doesn’t have to be charged and convicted. It’s enough for a judge to make the finding. You’re republican talking point about removing your opponent is weak. What is strong is the specifics of section 3 14th Amendment. According to legal scholars and the most impressive constitutional lawyers, Trump cannot legally be on the ballot. Trump is a criminal. He disqualified himself with his involvement in January 6.

      • Which constitution are you reading and what sections say any of what you claim? Have you ever heard of due process, it’s a foundational part of our country but dates back much further.

        I’m not sure which legal scholars or which most impressive constitutional lawyers you are referring to but the courts, so far, seem to disagree with you and them.

          • Jpw,

            There is the Constitution of the United States, most if not every state has their own constitution, many other countries have constitutions. Caleb Murphy is clearly not reading the Constitution of the United States, hence my question.

            Can you cite the sections in the Constitution of the United States that supports what Caleb claims, because he certainly cannot. Have you heard of due process, Caleb obviously does not understand the concept.

        • The 14th Amendment that you’re referring to was written immediately after the Civil War.. It never was applicable to the President of the United States.. It was written primarily for a purpose that pertains to many Southerners who didn’t agree they had lost the Civil War. There were still many that was willing to start an insurrection even if they were elected to represent their state in Virginia(DC gov’t). (I probably have left out other information, but getting the main point stated)

      • The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Section 1 says:
        “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

        Section 1 comes before Section 3, I’m surprised you missed that due process part and how you mistakenly assume that because somebody said something it must be true. We have due process for a reason, mainly it’s to keep people who think like you from infringing upon the rights of anyone who you disagree with or dislike.

        • Thank you for clearing that up steve old calib is making his own laws. Trump,told the people to go to the capitol and peacefully protest. Don young was there and he said there was NO insurrection. It all a bunch
          Of drama bs. I’m tired of hearing about it. Now I am sure there are a bunch of politicians that should be hung for treason. And WE the people have let them get away with this crap just about long enough.

      • “….will soon be marching peacefully & patriotically make your voices heard” – DJT 1/6/21
        “… we have to primary the hell out of those who do not fight” – DJT 1/6/21
        He did not tell anyone to riot and certainly not to insurrect (just coined that word)

      • Curious. One legal expert I really like is Alan Derschowitz (sorry, spelling…). Alan D. is about as Democrat as they come.
        He wants Trump to be on the ballot so that he can vote against him for a 3rd time. And, he says all of this is malarky.
        From the other side of the political aisle, one of the most knowledgeable people alive on the Constitution and Constitutional law is Mark Levin, and he says the charges are lucicrious.
        Who, exactly, are the experts you are citing?

  5. The Democrats have done a wonderful thing, by suing President Trump via the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court will be given the opportunity to invalidate the entire Amendment, not just a single clause of it.

  6. The question is whether or not this man is even worthy of my ballot.
    I always believed the court was never to decide a who I voted for, if the question was posed who is the judge to dismiss those who cannot pay.
    I am seemingly shocked this was thrown out right before the Supreme Court has even ruled. I believe the 14th Amendment Section 3 was created for such times of rebellion. And the fear of this law was used to quash the embers of the rebellion out. 1. He is an officer – the chief executive officer of America 2. He took an oath as the US President – he clearly violated it – as New Mexico and Colorado both have ruled January 6th an insurrection and clearly others too 3. The discovery has revealed a coup.
    I appreciate the generosity and courage. I wish we had more like him.

Comments are closed.