Caplan isn’t alone in this battle. Like reinforcements arriving at the eleventh hour, two additional plaintiffs joined the fray: Barry Butin of Florida and Michael Strianese of Nevada. They wielded allegations that Trump plotted to strip them of their civil rights.
Yet, Judge Rosenberg stood her ground. Using the Declaratory Judgment Act as her shield, she stated that the plaintiffs’ claims must be uniquely tied to them. Simply disapproving of a candidate’s views, she argued, doesn’t cut the mustard.
Trump 2024 eligibility : The Road Ahead and Echoes from the Past
Navigating through past precedents, Judge Rosenberg cited the 2022 case of Stencil v. Johnson. This case, mirroring Caplan’s argument, saw a failed attempt to bar members of Congress. The underlying message? Personal disapproval isn’t a strong enough anchor for legal action.
In a charged statement to Law360, Caplan fired back with a rhetorical salvo, questioning the very essence of ‘harm.’ He mused about the potential repercussions if Trump returns to power. Despite the setback, Caplan’s fiery spirit remains undeterred, though he hinted that an appeal might not be on his horizon.
