Subscribe for free to eliminate ads
Advertisement
Advertisement
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from former New Mexico official Couy Griffin, who was disqualified from holding office due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Griffin, an ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump, is the first elected official in over a century to be removed under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, a provision originally established to prevent Confederates from holding office after the Civil War.
Advertisementads
Advertisement
Couy Griffin has been disqualified from public office after the trial in state district court 2022 and his disqualification came despite the Supreme Court’s recent decision that federal candidates, including Trump, could not be barred from the ballot under similar claims. However, the justices noted that different rules apply to state and local officials, affirming the legality of disqualifying Griffin under state law.
Advertisement
Griffin had already been found guilty on January 6 of breaking into a Capitol-restricted area. He served a 14-day prison sentence, reduced by time already served, and has appealed that conviction. He contends that he was unaware the area was restricted and claims he was simply leading a prayer with a bullhorn, without any violent intent.
Advertisement
In a related development, the Supreme Court recently ruled against attempts to remove Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot using the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause. Despite several states pursuing such actions, Trump has never been charged or convicted under that provision, leading the court to strike down those efforts.
Advertisement
In another notable case, the Supreme Court ruled against a convicted drug dealer, Mark Pulsifer, impacting thousands of federal prisoners seeking reduced sentences. The legal argument centred on the First Step Act’s safety valve clause, a sentencing reform measure. Pulsifer argued he qualified for a reduced sentence, but the court, in a 6-3 ruling, disagreed.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, held that Pulsifer did not meet all the necessary criteria to qualify for the lesser sentence. The court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the word and in the statute, meaning that Pulsifer had to meet all conditions, not just some. Judge Neil Gorsuch, a conservative, dissented from the decision, claiming it drastically restricted the First Step Act’s application and prevented thousands of convicts from receiving customized sentences.