Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mike W's avatar

“Obviously, this was never about Greta Thunberg.” Talk about a twist ending!

Expand full comment
Daniel Pareja's avatar

There is, I believe, still a factual error in this article that needs clarifying, specifically having to do with New Mexico ex rel. White et al v. Griffin.

As I understand the ultimate disposition of the case, Mr. Griffin, after losing in a trial court in Santa Fe County, had an appeal as of right directly to the New Mexico Supreme Court. However, this right is subject to certain state-law procedural requirements, which Mr. Griffin failed to meet. Consequently, the New Mexico Supreme Court, rather than upholding the trial court's findings on the merits, dismissed Mr. Griffin's appeal on procedural grounds.

Mr. Griffin then appealed to the federal Supreme Court, since such appeals are permitted from state supreme courts (or whatever your state happens to call its highest court for the suit in question, if you're in a state like New York, Texas or Oklahoma) on questions of federal law, and the proper interpretation of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and its applicability and adjudication fall squarely within that ambit.

You can see the relevant documents here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-279.html

Of note is that there were no amicus briefs filed, and the respondents on appeal initially waived their right of response to Mr. Griffin's petition.

The problem Mr. Griffin faced in appealing to the federal Supreme Court is that the state Supreme Court had not ruled against him on questions of federal law, but rather had made a procedural ruling on the basis of New Mexico's civil procedure and quo warranto statutes. (It is perhaps worth noting here that like many states, Colorado and Minnesota among them, New Mexico's rules of civil procedure are effectively just a copy of the federal rules, which probably helps state government lawyers not have to keep two different sets of rules straight, but nonetheless in the New Mexico civil action context of this suit they are a state law, not a federal one.) The holdings on the questions of federal law were only made by the inferior court in Santa Fe County. Consequently there was, technically, nothing on which the state Supreme Court had ruled that Mr. Griffin could appeal.

The federal Supreme Court dismissed his application for a writ of certiorari without comment, some time after deciding Trump v. Anderson.

Ultimately, only the Santa Fe County trial court ever considered the merits of White v. Griffin. Mr. Griffin's error in failing to properly appeal to the state Supreme Court led to a procedural dismissal in that venue, which in turn led to the federal Supreme Court lacking any basis for appellate review, since the state Supreme Court had not ruled on any questions of federal law.

All that said, of course, given the holding in Trump v. Anderson, New Mexico's courts were entirely within their rights to adjudicate whether Mr. Griffin was eligible to hold an office under the state of New Mexico, such as serving on a county board of commissioners. Whether the trial court properly interpreted the law in the context of the events of January 6, 2021 is not something on which any higher court ruled, and indeed could not rule due to Mr. Griffin failing to meet the procedural requirements of New Mexico law.

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts