Otero County commissioner ousted over Jan. 6 appeals loss to U.S. Supreme Court

Couy Griffin is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a New Mexico ruling that ousted him from his seat on the Otero County Commission for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

His attorneys argue in a petition to the nation’s highest court that a New Mexico judge violated Griffin’s free speech rights and erred by finding that he participated in an insurrection as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

A judge in September 2022 ordered Griffin removed from office for violating an anti-insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment.

The clause prohibits people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and later participated in an insurrection, from holding public office. The Civil War-era amendment was intended, in part, to bar former Confederates from holding office.

A fervent Donald Trump supporter and co-founder of Cowboys for Trump, Griffin represented himself in a civil bench trial before 1st Judicial District Judge Francis Mathew.

Mathew’s ruling barring Griffin from office marked the first time since 1869 that someone was removed from public office for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Peter Ticktin, a Deerfield, Florida, attorney representing Griffin, said he believes the case has a good chance of being heard by the Supreme Court because the 14th Amendment has become a central issue in the 2024 presidential election.

“If you are going to ban somebody from holding public office for the rest of their lives, that’s the government taking punitive action against somebody,” Ticktin said Wednesday in a phone interview.

“That requires determination beyond any reasonable doubt, when you pit the state against an individual,” he said.

Joshua Matz, a Washington attorney representing the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit, has obtained an extension until Jan. 16 to file a response to the petition.

Matz did not immediately respond Wednesday to voice and email messages seeking comment.

Griffin’s legal woes

Griffin was convicted in federal court of a misdemeanor for entering the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021, without going inside the building. He was sentenced to 14 days and given credit for time served.

Marco Alarid White and Leslie Lakind, both of Santa Fe, and Mark Mitchell of Los Alamos brought the civil case against Griffin, arguing the Trump supporter violated the 14th Amendment when he entered the Capitol grounds that day.

Lawyers from throughout the country submitted briefs in support of the plaintiffs. Laurence Tribe, a professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard University, and Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, were among those who filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case.

Mathew wrote in a 49-page opinion that Griffin’s actions met the definition of an insurrection. He also found that Griffin was not a credible witness and made contradictory statements during the bench trial.

In their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ticktin and his co-council, Jamie Sasson of Deerfield Beach, Florida, argue that the New Mexico judge ruled on important constitutional issues better settled by the nation’s highest court.

The petition argues that the New Mexico judge incorrectly found that the events at the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection without finding that the goal was to seize control of the U.S. government.

“At best, the trial court’s findings were sufficient to conclude that Mr. Griffin engaged in a riot intended to create a disturbance or a civil commotion,” it said.

The petition also argues that the lower court disqualified Griffin in violation of his First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.

“In support of its conclusion that Mr. Griffin engaged in ‘insurrection,’ the trial court placed great emphasis upon Mr. Griffin’s speech before, during, and after the events taking place at the U.S. Capitol,” it said.

Griffin did not immediately respond Wednesday to voice messages seeking comment.

National issue

The anti-insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment is the basis of challenges to Trump’s eligibility to be on the ballot in New Mexico and across the nation.

Two states — Maine and Colorado — recently made historic decisions to remove Trump from their primary election ballots after state officials found his actions violated the 14th Amendment.

New Mexico is one of more than a dozen states weighing legal challenges to Trump’s eligibility for office because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

John Anthony Castro, a little-known Republican presidential candidate, has petitioned a federal judge in New Mexico to declare Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s election ballot.

In that case, attorneys are waiting for a ruling from a federal judge following a Nov. 28 hearing in U.S. District Court of New Mexico.