A group of voters in Georgia has filed a lawsuit aimed at preventing Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from seeking re-election. The legal challenge, submitted to the Georgia secretary of state, accuses Greene of violating a constitutional provision known as the “Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause.”
According to the lawsuit, Greene allegedly “voluntarily aided and joined in an insurrection to thwart the peaceful transfer of presidential power, disqualifying her from serving as a Member of Congress.” These allegations reference her actions before, on, and after the events of January 6, 2021. USA Today reported on the claims, highlighting the legal argument that Greene’s conduct places her in violation of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment explicitly states that no member of Congress shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it. This provision, rooted in the aftermath of the Civil War, was intended to prevent those who had supported the Confederacy from returning to power. However, the clause remains relevant today as a legal basis for disqualifying officials deemed to have engaged in acts of insurrection.
Supporters of the lawsuit argue that Greene’s rhetoric and actions encouraged violence and disrupted the lawful transfer of presidential power. They claim that urging supporters to participate in such activities constitutes a “useful” form of aid to insurrection. The lawsuit asserts that her involvement goes beyond political speech and represents an active contribution to the events of January 6.
Greene, however, has vehemently opposed the case and denied the allegations. She dismissed the lawsuit as a politically motivated attack, stating, “This same wicked scheme was used against President Donald Trump and his family. They know I’m effective and won’t bow to the DC machine, so they employ it on me now.”
SUBMIT VISA APPLICATION
In her defense, Greene emphasized her stance against political violence, asserting, “As I’ve said before, I strongly reject any kinds of political violence. No political chaos from me, ever.” Despite these declarations, her critics argue that her public statements and social media activity contributed to the events leading up to January 6.
The case against Greene follows a similar legal challenge brought against another Republican lawmaker, Representative Madison Cawthorn. In that instance, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. The challenge against Cawthorn, filed by the same organization behind Greene’s case, sought to bar him from the ballot on similar grounds. The lawsuit alleged that Cawthorn’s statements and actions before January 6 played a role in inciting violence against Congress.
However, the effort to disqualify Cawthorn was halted by U.S. District Judge Richard Myers, a Trump-appointed judge. Myers ruled against allowing the State Board of Elections to determine whether Cawthorn was disqualified under the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause. Legal director Rob Fein of Free Speech For People, the organization behind the lawsuits, expressed disappointment in the ruling, stating, “This judgment by Trump-appointed Chief Judge Richard Myers II would prevent the State Board of Elections from considering whether Cawthorn is unqualified under the U.S. Constitution’s Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause. The verdict must be overturned on appeal, and voters’ ability to question Cawthorn’s eligibility must be preserved.”
The legal battles over the eligibility of lawmakers like Greene and Cawthorn raise broader questions about the application of the 14th Amendment in modern politics. While some legal experts argue that states have the authority to disqualify candidates who violate constitutional provisions, others contend that only Congress has the power to enforce such disqualifications.
Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, has weighed in on the issue, asserting that Georgia election officials do not have the constitutional authority to remove Greene from the ballot. He argues that the Constitution does not grant states the power to assess a congressional candidate’s eligibility for office, reserving that power for Congress.
Beyond the courtroom, Greene’s legal troubles have drawn political attention, particularly within the Republican Party. The debate over her actions and statements has fueled divisions within the party, with some members distancing themselves from her while others rally behind her.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly criticized lawmakers who take extreme positions on issues like Ukraine. In an interview with Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation,” McConnell referred to Greene and Cawthorn as “lonely voices” within the Republican Party. Brennan questioned McConnell about the rhetoric of certain Republican members, citing Representative Liz Cheney’s concerns about a “Putin wing” within the party. She pointed specifically to Cawthorn’s comments calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “thug” and Greene’s assertion that the U.S. should not fund a war that Ukraine cannot win.
McConnell responded by reinforcing the party’s broader support for Ukraine, stating, “I know there are some lonely voices out there, but looking at Senate Republicans, I can persuade you I would have put this Ukraine auxiliary up alone if I were the Majority Leader. Almost all of my members would have voted yes. The great majority of Republicans in Congress and throughout the nation fully support the Ukrainians and urge the president to act quickly. To be bolder. So there could be a few lonely voices. I wouldn’t bother with them.”
This tension within the Republican Party reflects the broader ideological struggles it faces as figures like Greene continue to draw attention for their controversial statements and legal battles. While Greene remains a prominent voice within the party’s populist wing, her ongoing legal and political challenges may impact her future in Congress.
As the lawsuit against Greene proceeds, it is likely to set a precedent for how courts interpret and apply the 14th Amendment in modern political contexts. Should the challenge succeed, it could pave the way for similar efforts against other politicians accused of engaging in insurrectionist activities. Conversely, if Greene prevails, it may serve as a warning to future challengers seeking to use the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause as a legal strategy against sitting lawmakers.
Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the deep political and legal divisions in the country. With ongoing debates over election integrity, political violence, and the role of lawmakers in shaping public discourse, the legal fight against Greene is likely to remain a focal point in the broader struggle over the future of American democracy.
