Rule of Law

RELEASE: In Cawthorn January 6 Case, a “Mystifying” Preliminary Ruling 

WASHINGTON – Following a North Carolina-based federal judge’s grant of a preliminary injunction to Rep. Madison Cawthorn—preventing the North Carolina State Board of Elections from determining whether Cawthorn should be disqualified from the ballot due to his alleged involvement in the January 6 attack on the Capitol—Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President Praveen Fernandes issued the following reaction:

We are mystified by the district court’s decision today to grant Representative Cawthorn’s request for an injunction against state election board proceedings about whether he is disqualified from serving in Congress by virtue of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, which disqualifies from holding federal office those who “having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

The district court’s conclusion that the Amnesty Act of 1872 lifted candidacy restrictions not only for many former Confederate officials, but also for all future insurrectionists, defies text, history, and logic. The plain text of the of the law makes clear that it looks backward, not forward, in its application, and this reading is reinforced by its history. This law was passed as a substitute for laws specifying by name a laundry list of Confederate insurrectionists; it was not passed to protect any and all people who might take up arms against their country in the future. Indeed, such a broad reading of the Amnesty Act’s reach is illogical, as it would effectively nullify Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision that was viewed as critically important in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Text, history, and logic fail to support today’s decision, which would undermine the critical need for accountability for the events of January 6th. We look forward to its reversal on appeal.

#

Resources:

“Text and History Demonstrate Cawthorn Can’t Evade Accountability for January 6,” Praveen Fernandes, Charles Miller, and Charlotte Schwartz, CAC Blog, February 23, 2022: https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/text-and-history-demonstrate-the-weakness-of-cawthorn-arguments-text-and-history-demonstrate-cawthorn-cant-evade-accountability-for-january-6/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.