In a significant development, two recent actions by the U.S. Supreme Court have paved the way for the disqualification of local and state officials from holding office for life if found to have engaged in "insurrection" or provided "aid and comfort" to enemies of the Constitution. These actions are based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to prevent Confederates from returning to government and how the courts interpret it.

The Supreme Court's decision on Monday rejected the appeal of a former New Mexico county commissioner who was removed from office after being convicted of trespassing during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The state judge who barred him from office invoked Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, asserting that his actions violated it.

This ruling follows another expedited decision made by the high court which stated that Section 3 cannot be applied against federal officials or candidates until Congress establishes procedures through legislation. However, the Supreme Court's ruling explicitly mentioned that the provision can still be used against state and local officials.

These actions have created a new legal landscape as advocacy groups, particularly those on the liberal side, renew their efforts to target state and local officials tied to the events of January 6. Advocates argue that these individuals, even if they hold low-level offices, broke their oath by participating in the insurrection.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Free Speech For People, two left-leaning groups, have shown a particular interest in pursuing disqualification cases under Section 3. CREW has already succeeded in one case against a local official in New Mexico.

Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who founded the promotional group Cowboys for Trump, is the only elected official thus far who has been barred from holding office due to his connection to the Capitol attack. The lawsuit against Griffin cited his violation of Section 3, which prohibits individuals from holding future office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or provided aid and comfort to its enemies.

As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in the disqualification case involving former President Donald Trump, a state or local official removed under Section 3 could still hold federal office, including the presidency, unless Congress takes action.

However, concerns have been raised about potential misuse of Section 3 for partisan purposes. Some argue that the ruling opens the door for politically motivated disqualifications, as individuals could find a sympathetic judge in a friendly county to sideline opponents.

Legal experts have acknowledged that Section 3 litigation may extend beyond cases tied to January 6 in the future. They maintain that the court system is equipped to distinguish frivolous uses of the provision, just as it does in other ballot challenges.

While the application of Section 3 against state and local officials remains a contentious issue, proponents believe it is a necessary tool to hold individuals accountable for their role in insurrectionist activities. The legal landscape is evolving, and only time will tell how this new precedent will shape disqualification cases moving forward.