SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Massachusetts Voters Move to Enforce 14th Amendment and Bar Donald Trump From Ballot
Citing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause, the plaintiffs argue that Trump is constitutionally ineligible for public office after inciting the violent January 6th Capitol insurrection.
BOSTON
Free Speech For People (FSFP), along with nationally recognized litigator Shannon Liss-Riordan of the Massachusetts-based civil rights firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., filed a challenge today before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission on behalf of individual Massachusetts voters challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the state’s presidential primary and general election ballot. The challengers are a mix of Republican, Independent, and Democratic voters and include former Boston Mayor Kim Janey and two leading law professors. The challenge asks the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission to abide by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and bar Trump from appearing on the state ballot.
Enacted in the wake of the Civil War, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies from public office, regardless of a prior criminal conviction, any individual who has taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and then engages in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or gives aid or comfort to its enemies. Trump’s involvement in the violent attack on Congress to prevent the certification of democratic election results clearly disqualifies him from holding any future public office.
Under Massachusetts law, the Ballot Law Commission “shall have jurisdiction over and render a decision on any matter referred to it, pertaining to the … constitutional qualifications of any nominee for … national … office [and] the certificates of nomination or nomination papers filed in any presidential … primary.”
“Donald Trump violated his oath of office and incited a violent insurrection that attacked the U.S. Capitol, threatened the assassination of the Vice President and congressional leaders, and disrupted the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our nation’s history,” said Ron Fein, Legal Director at Free Speech For People. “Our predecessors understood that oath-breaking insurrectionists will do it again, and worse, if allowed back into power, so they enacted the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause to protect the republic from people like Trump. Trump is legally barred from the ballot and election officials must follow this constitutional mandate.”
“Today’s legal action is not about partisan politics but about upholding our Constitution, and that is why Massachusetts voters across the political spectrum have joined together to challenge Donald Trump’s wrongful placement on the Massachusetts ballot,” said Shannon Liss-Riordan. “As two other states have already recognized, Donald Trump’s instigation of and participation in the insurrection three years ago provide overwhelming cause for his disqualification from holding office in the United States.”
On behalf of voters, Free Speech For People has also filed legal challenges to Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon and Illinois. The state supreme courts of Minnesota and Michigan have ruled solely on state procedural grounds that Trump will not be barred from the presidential primary ballot but have left the door open for the challenges to be renewed for the general election. The Oregon challenge is currently pending review before the Oregon Supreme Court. The Illinois objection is pending before the state Board of Elections.
Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State have recently issued rulings that Trump is disqualified from appearing on their state ballots under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Free Speech For People filed similar Section 3 challenges in 2022 against Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and former North Carolina Congressman Madison Cawthorn for their role in the January 6th insurrection. Although those challenges did not result in disqualification (Cawthorn’s because he lost his primary while the challenge was pending; Greene’s because the judge found insufficient factual evidence that she, personally, had engaged in the insurrection), they set important legal precedent that lays the groundwork for this challenge, including: that states have legal authority to adjudicate Section 3 challenges; that state processes for adjudicating Section 3 challenges do not violate a candidate’s constitutional rights; that no prior criminal conviction is required under Section 3 challenge; that words (including “marching orders or instructions to capture a particular objective, or to disrupt or obstruct a particular government proceeding”) can constitute engaging in insurrection; and that an 1872 congressional amnesty for ex-Confederates does not apply to January 6.
On September 6, 2022, Judge Francis J. Matthew of New Mexico’s First District permanently enjoined Otero County Commissioner and “Cowboys for Trump” founder Couy Griffin from holding office under the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause.
Free Speech For People, a national nonpartisan legal advocacy group, has spearheaded the nationwide effort to “hold insurrectionists accountable for their role in the violent assault on American democracy” that took place on January 6th, 2021, starting with the issuance in June 2021 of letters to secretaries of state and chief election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Along with Mi Familia Vota, the group launched TrumpIsDisqualified.org, a campaign calling on Secretaries of State and top election officials across the country to follow the mandate of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and permanently bar Donald Trump–and all other elected officials who participated in the January 6th insurrection–from any future ballot.
Click here to read the Objection.
To learn more about the case, click here.
To learn more about Free Speech For People’s other actions under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, click here.
Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan non-profit organization founded on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that works to defend our democracy and our Constitution.
LATEST NEWS
1,800+ 'No Kings' Rallies Planned Across US as Trump Deploys Military to Crush Protests
"We'll rise together and say: We reject political violence. We reject fear as governance. We reject the myth that only some deserve freedom," wrote the coalition behind "No Kings" rallies planned for June 14.
Jun 09, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to quell anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in Los Angeles, prompting a response from the coalition behind upcoming nationwide protests planned to counter Trump's Washington, D.C. military parade on June 14.
The coalition organizing the "No Kings" national day of action accused the Trump administration of "escalating tensions" in a statement released Sunday.
Generally, the U.S. military is not supposed to take part in civilian law enforcement except in times of emergency. Trump on Saturday invoked a federal law that, according to The Guardian, empowers the president to call part of California's National Guard into federal service. California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom objected to this move.
Protests began on Friday following reports that federal immigration agents were carrying out raids in Los Angeles.
In their statement, the coalition denounced Trump's decision to call National Guard members into federal service, and wrote that "people are peacefully and lawfully protesting the administration's abuses of power and the abduction of their neighbors by ICE."
"Instead of listening, the Trump administration is escalating tensions," the coalition wrote. "Against the guidance of local leaders, they are deploying military force to suppress free speech. They do not care about our safety—it's about silencing opposition. It's a blatant abuse of power designed to intimidate families, stoke fear, and crush dissent."
Law enforcement has acted with force against protestors, including using tear gas and flash bangs, according to CNN. And according to the Los Angeles Times, overnight into Monday businesses were vandalized and burglarized, capping a period of unrest that saw protestors set cars on fire, in addition to other acts of vandalism.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Sunday denounced the lawbreaking, but also laid blame on the Trump administration, according to the LA Times.
"What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration," Bass said, according to the outlet. "When you raid Home Depot and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans through our streets you cause fear and you cause panic."
In concluding their statement about Trump's deployment of the National Guard, the coalition behind "No Kings" struck a defiant tone. "From major cities to small towns, we'll rise together and say: we reject political violence. We reject fear as governance. We reject the myth that only some deserve freedom," they wrote.
The groups say that more than 1,800 rallies are planned for Saturday and that the events are guided by a commitment to nonviolent protest. In the statement, the group also said that organizers with "No Kings" are trained in de-escalation tactics and plan to work closely with local partners to ensure actions are peaceful.
Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of Indivisible, one of the groups behind "No Kings," has said that the aim is to "create contrast, not conflict."
Over 150 progressive organizations, watchdogs, climate groups, and other entities are partners on the "No Kings" rallies.
See the full list of planned events and locations here.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Ticking Time Bomb': Study Says Ocean Acidification Crossed Planetary Boundary
"We're gambling with both biodiversity and billions in economic value every day that action is delayed," said one expert.
Jun 09, 2025
As this year's United Nations Ocean Conference began in France on Monday, scientists published a study showing that another "planetary boundary," or barriers that ensure the Earth is a "safe operating space for humanity," has been crossed.
Researchers said in 2023 that 6 of the 9 boundaries—biogeochemical flows, biosphere integrity, the climate, freshwater, land use, and novel entities—had been crossed. Last year, they issued a "red alert" about ocean acidification, the topic of the new study, Ocean Acidification: Another Planetary Boundary Crossed.
As the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains, humanity's burning of fossil fuels and land use changes have caused the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to soar, and the ocean absorbs some of it. The resulting chemical interactions make seawater more acidic.
In the new study, scientists from NOAA, Oregon State University, and the United Kingdom's Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) wrote that "we improve upon the ocean acidification planetary boundary assessment and demonstrate that by 2020, the average global ocean conditions had already crossed into the uncertainty range of the ocean acidification boundary."
"This analysis was further extended to the subsurface ocean, revealing that up to 60% of the global subsurface ocean (down to 200 m) had crossed that boundary, compared to over 40% of the global surface ocean," they continued. "These changes result in significant declines in suitable habitats for important calcifying species, including 43% reduction in habitat for tropical and subtropical coral reefs, up to 61% for polar pteropods, and 13% for coastal bivalves."
"As our seas increase in acidity, we're witnessing the loss of critical habitats that countless marine species depend on, and this, in turn, has major societal and economic implications."
The study's lead author, North-East Atlantic Ocean Acidification Hub chair and PML professor Helen Findlay, said in a Monday statement that "looking across different areas of the world, the polar regions show the biggest changes in ocean acidification at the surface. Meanwhile, in deeper waters, the largest changes are happening in areas just outside the poles and in the upwelling regions along the west coast of North America and near the equator."
"Most ocean life doesn't just live at the surface—the waters below are home to many more different types of plants and animals. Since these deeper waters are changing so much, the impacts of ocean acidification could be far worse than we thought," Findlay noted. "This has huge implications for important underwater ecosystems like tropical and even deep-sea coral reefs that provide essential habitats and nursing refuge for many species, in addition to the impacts being felt on bottom-dwelling creatures like crabs, sea stars, and other shellfish such as mussels and oysters."
Fellow PML professor and Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network co-chair Steve Widdicombe, who provided the study authors with comments on a draft, said Monday that "ocean acidification isn't just an environmental crisis—it's a ticking time bomb for marine ecosystems and coastal economies."
"As our seas increase in acidity, we're witnessing the loss of critical habitats that countless marine species depend on, and this, in turn, has major societal and economic implications," he warned. "From the coral reefs that support tourism to the shellfish industries that sustain coastal communities, we're gambling with both biodiversity and billions in economic value every day that action is delayed."
The 2024 Planetary Boundaries report showed 6/9 boundaries breached with the 7th, Ocean Acidification, in danger. A new study shows that this too has now been crossed. The implications are huge!onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...#climatechange #oceanacidification #planetaryboundaries #oceans
[image or embed]
— Dr Tom Harris (@drtomharris.bsky.social) June 9, 2025 at 9:22 AM
Costa Rica and France are co-hosting the U.N. summit in the French coastal city of Nice this week. The theme is "accelerating action and mobilizing all actors to conserve and sustainably use the ocean."
Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar, who will be attending the meeting, said Monday that "this conference couldn't come at a more critical time. The ocean is reeling from the combined impacts of industrial fishing, plastic pollution, and climate change. And just when bold leadership is most needed, the U.S. has walked away from the global stage, opening the floodgates to destruction through a barrage of Trump administration executive orders that threaten both domestic and international waters."
"We can't afford any more delay," he stressed. "The decisions made in Nice will set the tone for key global efforts to stem the ocean crisis in the coming months, including the plastics treaty, the global ocean treaty, and deep-sea mining talks at the International Seabed Authority. Whether this conference marks a turning point or takes our oceans further down the road to ruin will depend on the strength and ambition of the commitments made by the international community to stand up for science, uphold international law, and advance environmental justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
California City Cancels 'Divisive' ICE Contract Amid Los Angeles Protests
"With a population that is more than 50% immigrant, the city of Glendale should be a beacon for immigrants' rights," said one rights defender.
Jun 09, 2025
Citing a need to protect "community trust," the city of Glendale, California announced Sunday it was terminating its contract with immigration officials and would no longer detain immigrants in a local jail.
The decision was announced as Los Angeles, which borders Glendale, erupted in protests over raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which said Saturday that it had arrested 118 immigrants.
The weekend protests captured the nation's attention as the Trump administration deployed the National Guard and the Los Angeles Police Department authorized the use of "less lethal munitions," including tear gas and rubber bullets.
Protesters have carried signs reading, "ICE: Out of Our Communities," "ICE = Terrorism," and "History Will Remember."
Glendale officials insisted in their statement released on Sunday that "the decision to terminate [the ICE] contract is not politically driven," but several observers noted that the announcement was made as the unrest escalated and solidarity pro-immigration protests across the country were organized.
"The city recognizes that public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive," said Glendale officials, adding that the decision to end the contract "is rooted in what this city stands for—public safety, local accountability, and trust."
Authorities added that Glendale police do not enforce immigration law and are "fully compliant" with Senate Bill 54, also known as the California Values Act, the 2017 law that made California the nation's first sanctuary state.
The law prohibits local and state law enforcement from allowing federal immigration authorities to utilize space in their facilities, but 82 immigrants have been housed in the Glendale City Jail since January after being detained by ICE.
A city spokesperson told local news station NBC4 that the immigrants have spent between six and 12 hours in the jail, and city officials said Sunday that the police have ensured "access to clean accommodations, on-call medical care, family visitation, and legal counsel."
But Sarah Houston, an immigration lawyer with Immigrant Defenders Law Center, told city councilors at the meeting last week that her client had been held without food for nine hours.
"After the horrific raids and violations this weekend, it is all the more important that our local communities stand together to protect our immigrant brothers and sisters as intended in the California Values Act," said Houston.
Other California cities ended their contracts with immigration authorities after the law was passed, but Glendale's police chief at the time, Robert Castro, opposed the measure and maintained the ICE agreement, which had been in place since 2007.
The Los Angeles Timesreported that "the city manager warned against nixing the contract in a bid to maintain a good relationship with federal authorities."
Andrés Kwon, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, told the Times that it was "shocking" that Glendale has had the contract.
"Ultimately and effectively, this Glendale contract with ICE is helping the Trump administration carry out its mass deportation agenda that is racist and has abused countless peoples, constitutional, civil, and human rights," said Kwon.
"With a population that is more than 50% immigrant, the city of Glendale should be a beacon for immigrants' rights," Kwon added. "As we've witnessed masked ICE and federal agents abducting Angelenos, locking up entire families in basements, and separating families—how could the city of Glendale ensure that the Angelenos it held for ICE weren't unconstitutionally detained?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular