Go to main contentsGo to main menu
Monday, November 25, 2024 at 5:30 AM

Trump Lawyers Cite Rockbridge Case

Those who followed the news coverage of last week’s Supreme Court hearing of the case regarding Colorado removing former President Donald Trump from the ballot for the upcoming elections may have noticed a reference to a particular case in the plantiff’s arguments that has its origins in Rockbridge County.

Those who followed the news coverage of last week’s Supreme Court hearing of the case regarding Colorado removing former President Donald Trump from the ballot for the upcoming elections may have noticed a reference to a particular case in the plantiff’s arguments that has its origins in Rockbridge County.

The 19th century case in question was an appeal of a conviction by Caesar Griffin, a Black man in Rockbridge County who was indicted, tried and convicted for “shooting with intent to kill” and was sentenced to two years in prison. Griffin was tried in 1866, prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, but the appeal, filed in 1868 and ruled on in 1869, cited Article Three of the amendment, arguing that the judge in the original case, Hugh W. Sheffey, had no standing to preside over the case as a former soldier in the Confederate Army.

Chief Justice Salmon Chase of the Virginia District heard the case and ultimately ruled that Section Three of the amendment was not “selfexecuting” and would require an act of Congress to be applicable to Judge Sheffey, denying Griffin’s appeal.

Chase’s arguments were cited by the former president’s lawyers in their briefs to the Supreme Court, while the other attorneys countered that the case was not heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, but was “a ruling by a single justice sitting as a Circuit Court judge,” and pointed to another case regarding Section Three that Chase had ruled on a few months before Griffin’s case. In that case, which involved former President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis, Chase ruled that the article was “self-executing” and didn’t require an act of Congress to be implemented. The contradictory rulings from the same judge, the defense argued, meant that the Griffin case “has no bearing on the issue of disqualifying candidates for office.”

The Supreme Court Justices heard arguments on the case last Thursday and then recessed until this Friday, when they are expected to give their ruling on the case.


Share
Rate

Lexington-News-Gazette

Dr. Ronald Laub DDS