Judge rules against complainant who says 14th Amendment stops Trump from being president


A federal judge in Florida has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Florida attorney who said former President Donald Trump cannot run for office on the basis of his having fomented an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, the day that protesters swarmed the U.S. Capitol to protest the certification of the election of Joe Biden.

Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the Southern District of Florida ruled that attorney Lawrence Caplan, who filed the legal challenge, has no standing for lawsuit regarding Trump and the 14th Amendment. 

“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge defendant’s qualifications for seeking the presidency, as the injuries alleged are not cognizable and not particular to them,” the judge wrote in her opinion.

Caplan and other “Never Trumpers” say that the 14th Amendment says those who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government cannot hold elected office.

Trump is far-and-away the leading Republican candidate in every poll, and barring an unforeseen incident, is heading toward a possible nomination by the Republican Party.

“The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment,” the attorney wrote in his complaint, now thrown out by the judge.

Judge Rosenberg, appointed by President Barack Obama, did not rule on the question on fate 14th Amendment applying to Trump, but only on whether the man who brought the lawsuit has standing.


  1. These frivolous lawsuits are designed only to harass and intimidate. Enhanced attorneys fees goes to the prevailing party. Plaintiff lawyer should be turned over to the state bar association and heavily disciplined with three years suspension for bringing these political suits designed to infringe on a political candidate’s rights.

  2. Let me see if I have this right.
    In order for 2nd Amendment supporters to “fight against an illegal government” they have to have F-15s and nukes. An AR-15 is basically meaningless.
    But, the very same people that are pushing that BS also claim a bunch of unarmed grandmothers almost toppled the US Government on Jan 6th.
    Please explain to me how both are accurate.

    • First, you have to stand on one foot.
      Then you have to have a lobotomy.
      Then you must believe boys can become girls by wishing…

    • They didn’t topple the government but they tried to and now they’re paying for it with long prison sentences. Praise the Lord!

      • Cman, your lies and delusions are off the charts.

        Yes, the only so-called “Insurrection” in world history in which the ONLY weapons were wielded by the police and establishment authority! Your Orwellian propaganda is an insidious and contemptible as it is laughable.

        Now, go lick those boots, and get another “safe and effective” booster while you’re at it.

      • Long prison sentences for mis demeanor sounds really legal. You know that these are unconstitutional sentences, right? Peaceful assembly is allowed. Go buy a po ket constitution

      • The guy wearing the horns on his head could have overthrown our government by himself that day just by lowering his head and hit the capital building at ramming speed.
        It could have been as devastating as the hit on the pentagon during the 9/11 attack.

      • Troll alert….. no ones that ignorant and oblivious of the facts. The attempt at being believable ranks right up there with all the federal agents, smashing the windows and pushing people in the building. On that day, when America was fighting to stay alive and failed.

      • Nope, according to the leftists (of which you are one), the events of Jan 6th were an insurrection that almost destroyed democracy and the government as we know it.
        Twisting words to defend your position is exactly what children and leftists (sorry to repeat myself) do.

    • Don’t forget;
      the IRS needs to be heavily armed with fully automatic weaponry so they can confiscate Amish farms over processing meat for their neighbors.

      In 2022, they tripled their annual ammunition budget. Interesting timing.

  3. You can’t have an insurrection against a corporation. The US, USA, the United States, the United States of America are all corporations, and their parent companies are offshore, in Edinburgh Scotland, London and Puerto Rico, and other places. DC is a foreign enclave, not “our government”. These are mere governmental service providers, and because of their numerous bankruptcies, they no longer have valid contracts. All their delegated powers have returned to the source, The United States of America unincorporated.

      • I don’t understand why people think they can wordsmith their way out of left wing authoritarianism, the double standard is the point. The meme reply – “Compelling argument, now face the wall.”

        Yes, there was a protest – it did get out of hand. The appropriate punishments were fines and perhaps some probation. Pointing out the tyranny of decades long prison sentences handed out is valid. Holding people without bail for years over misdemeanor charges. Watching the government eagerly spend resources hunting individuals down for years over these misdemeanors.

        The evidence is there. The sickness is spreading and the political right needs to learn and adapt – not engage in meaningless pilpul with people that hate you.

        The correct answer is not, “Ackt-tu-ally, its not an ‘insurrection’ because our ‘government’ is a ‘corporation’.”

        Stonetoss – “Use it or lose it”

  4. How did a Florida attorney have standing in this case?

    How many cases regarding election tampering or fraud were booted because of no standing?

    How many cases regarding mitigating the reaction to covid lacked standing?

    • This particular complaint was filed in Florida. Complaints must be adjudicated in the location lodged.

    • I am not a lawyer warning is in full effect here:
      In order to have standing, one must demonstrate they were harmed in some way. This lawyer was not harmed in any way by the so-called “insurrection.” Not in a legally defensible manner.
      A similar decision has been handed down in the other cases you mentioned. in order for a person, or group, to demonstrate they have standing in an election fraud case, they first have to prove it happened. And the anonymous ballot system we have in the USA makes it near impossible to prove fraud happened. That reason, and that reason alone, is why all the lawsuits after the 2020 and 2022 elections were tossed.

  5. I’m not sure which is more disturbing.

    The fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution and our governmental processes by people who are supposed to know better,


    These people DO know better and flatly just don’t care.

  6. Don’t think this protest turned small riot ever qualified as an attempt to overthrow the government. Many examples in other countries. It is an effort, using weapons, militants, and all available resources. Very sure that we never saw an insurrection or anything close that day, no matter how the media tried to play it up. And definitely not the first protest to become emotional. Kind of like the weather events that have been going on since time began, where now every time the wind blows or it rains or snows, it is a potential disaster. Unless you live in Alaska or some other less populated area not subject to crowd panic. These people need a new hobby, besides media.

    • Probably would have stayed peaceful if capitol police didn’t start shooting rubber bullets, and launching flash bangs into the peaceful crowd. How many fed agents were in that crowd?

    • Yeah but the poor people like Kamala who were targets that day said it was like being in Pearl Harbor when she was there in December of 41…
      AOC was scared to death! Thought she would be carved alive…
      The capitol police had to run for their lives to open the gates and unlock the doors for the protestors….

    • Can you imagine if it had been radical leftists and/or (so-called) antifas that had engaged in that protest, instead? The Capitol would have been trashed, and probably burned to the ground.

      • But would they have left the biological deposits through out the Capital Building like this classy bunch of trailer park dwellers?

        • Of course, the ‘homeless’ (read: deranged and addicted) being an integral part of the radical left. And we all know that the ‘homeless’ have all the biological self-control (and utter lack of dignity) of a newborn puppy.

  7. As absurd as this lawsuit was, this was once again a technical ruling on “standing” rather than on the merits of the case. If this judge is to be believed, an American citizen living in the United States is not sufficiently affected by the actions of the President to be able to challenge his qualification to serve in court. I think those of us who were facing termination from our jobs, at Biden’s demand, less than 2 years ago were most certainly affected by the President’s actions.
    Who does have standing? An opposing candidate? A political party? This is a dangerous legal pathway.

  8. Cman is missing letters unt man, or could it be ommie man? Either way he is not only missing letters ,but brain cells I wonder how that has happen! Thank God he is in the minority!

  9. Few things people are missing, Trump has not been CONVICTED of anything , therefore the argument of the 14th Amendment is a moot point until a conviction is rendered. The judge NEVER said that it wasn’t a plausible lawsuit just that it has no standing BECAUSE, no conviction. It’s called due process for a reason. Now IF he is convicted of one of the counts in his court cases THEN it would have standing.

    Too many far right and far leftists are take a breath and look at what was actually said and how due process works.

Comments are closed.