On Tuesday, a New Mexico district court judge disqualified Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin from holding public
office in a case brought by three New Mexico residents. This comes after Griffin’s conviction of a misdemeanor for entering the U.S. Capitol grounds during the Jan. 6 riot. In his ruling Judge Francis J. Mathew relied on the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. KUNM asked Professor Maryam Ahranjani at the University of New Mexico School of Law to explain the
amendment and what the ruling could mean.
Aranjani was one several attorneys who filed an amicus brief in the case arguing Griffin could not use the First Amendment as a defense, but she was not a party to the case.
MARYAM AHRANJANI: Section three of the 14th Amendment is known as the disqualification clause. And the idea there is that those who seek to undermine the authority of the government of the United States may be disqualified from serving in public office,
KUNM: What is the historical context for which it was created?
AHRANJANI: Generally speaking, the idea was to avoid any disruption to government functioning, and concerns after the Civil War of making sure that the nation was unified as one nation, and the idea was to make sure that those who are in public office are seeking to support one nation.
KUNM: So it was designed with Confederate generals, Confederate participants in mind.
AHRANJANI: Yeah, so I think that's fair to say.
KUNM: And it appears it has been rarely used. This is the first time since 1869, that a court has disqualified a public official under Section Three?
AHRANJANI: That's my understanding as well. Yes.
KUNM: Why do you think it's so rarely used?
AHRANJANI: Well, I think January 6, is a unique instance in our history. And so it has revived, I would say, interest in the disqualification clause, but also all the facts have to line up such that it makes sense to try to argue that it has been violated. So, you know, it's rare that there's somebody who holds public office who is engaged in undermining the government, who then is still in office afterwards.
KUNM: And groups have filed challenges in other states trying to block lawmakers from holding office if they supported the Jan. 6 rioters. What kind of legal precedent could this possibly set?
AHRANJANI: Well, I think that depends who you're talking to. You know, folks who support those kinds of efforts may feel that this was an isolated holding against one individual and certain facts in that one individual's case. But of course, those who adopt a more broad reading of the case and broad application of the case, I think, would say that the intent here is to prevent that kind of effort.
KUNM: We're talking about legal precedent. Could you talk a bit more about that, and why one ruling in New Mexico could have ramifications elsewhere?
AHRANJANI: Sure, absolutely. So this was a ruling in the First Judicial Circuit, in a district court in New Mexico. So it's a state court. And the idea is under our legal system, when you're a part of a jurisdiction, you're only subject to cases that are binding in that jurisdiction. And so the Supreme Court is the highest court, you know, in the federal system, and the idea is that their opinions apply to all of us, all of us are in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
But then when you work your way through other lower federal courts, and then state courts, the applicability of rulings, moves from a space of binding to persuasive authority, which just means that it's those other cases are important. And courts will look at them, particularly if they don't currently have case law on point, they're going to look at other jurisdictions that have cases that are similar, factually speaking, as persuasive authority. And we do that, by the way, all the time in New Mexico, because we're a small state, only 2.1 million inhabitants, we don't have as large a body of case law as, say, California or Colorado, Texas, our the neighboring states. So sometimes our judges turned to the law of other states as a guide, not that the law in other states is binding, but it can be very helpful to judges and making decisions.
So certainly for the reason you mentioned, which is that this is a unique instance, where a judge has found a violation of the disqualification clause, because of the fact that there are lots of other people that were involved in the insurrection on January 6, the applicability of this case could be broad.
KUNM: Could advocates use such a ruling to try and prevent Donald Trump from running for office again?
AHRANJANI: Certainly. I think that's a possibility for sure. Again, there are people who interpret, you know, the applicability of this case in different ways. But one interpretation is that at the very least, it will be persuasive authority in the quest to for those who are trying to prevent the former president from running again.
