In a recent development, Couy Griffin, a prominent supporter of former President Donald Trump and founder of "Cowboys for Trump," has expressed his hopes that the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's eligibility to stay on the ballot in Colorado could also benefit his own legal standing. Griffin, who was criminally convicted for his involvement in the events of January 6th and subsequently removed from his position as a county commissioner in New Mexico, has a pending appeal at the Supreme Court that raises similar questions to Trump's case.

The basis for Griffin's removal from office was the application of a section of the 14th Amendment, which states that individuals who have "engaged in insurrection" are ineligible to hold office. This same theory is being employed by Colorado officials to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot. However, based on the oral arguments heard last week, it seems probable that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Trump, which could potentially have implications for Griffin's case.

Griffin revealed in an interview that he was heartened by the justices' questions during the arguments and viewed his situation as a testing ground for the legal issues raised against Trump. Griffin's case is scheduled for discussion at the Supreme Court's regular private conference on Friday. In September 2022, a state judge in New Mexico removed Griffin from his position as a commissioner in Otero County, concluding that his actions on January 6th rendered him ineligible to serve.

It is worth noting that Griffin was previously convicted of illegally entering Capitol grounds, although he was acquitted of engaging in disorderly conduct. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, is designed to prevent individuals who previously took an oath to defend the Constitution from holding various government offices. Notably, this provision has been rarely enforced and was initially aimed at preventing former Confederates from returning to government positions.

While the justices' questions in the Trump case focused on federal offices, legal experts point out that Griffin may still lose out in his own case due to technicalities and the potential distinction between federal and state offices. Although there is ambiguity regarding whether Section 3 is self-executing or requires enforcement by Congress, Griffin's lawyer argues that the New Mexico court ruling did not differentiate between federal and state positions, effectively barring Griffin from any government role.

Experts further suggest that if the Supreme Court were to reject the argument that Section 3 is self-executing, Griffin's prospects could be negatively impacted. Notably, the ruling may distinguish between the presidency and other offices, but some legal scholars deem such a distinction as "fabricated by the court." It should be noted that Section 3 also applies to appointed positions, presenting a potential obstacle to Griffin's aspirations of joining the federal government under a Trump presidency.

Despite his ongoing legal battle, Griffin has expressed his disillusionment with the process that resulted in his removal from office, calling it unfair. Although he is not actively seeking a return to elected office, Griffin hopes for Trump's victory in the presidential election, with the aspiration of being appointed to a federal government position. However, this ambition may be hindered by the application of Section 3 to appointed roles as well.

As the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's eligibility unfolds, the implications for Griffin's case remain uncertain. Legal experts argue that the outcome could have far-reaching consequences, potentially determining the application of Section 3 in future cases involving both federal and state offices.