Judge Robin Rosenberg has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s candidacy, brought forward by Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others.

In her ruling, Judge Rosenberg stated, “An individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office.” She added that the injuries alleged in the lawsuit were not specific to the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit filed by the lawyer and two others asserted, “The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment.”

While the lawyer does not plan to appeal, they intend to file a similar lawsuit in another state, likely in the D.C. District Court, believing that the “standing” issue will not be the same there.

The tax lawyer initiated the lawsuit just a week ago, noting in the filing, “Assuming that the public record to date is accurate, and we have no evidence to the contrary, Trump is no longer eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States, or of any other state of the Union.”

When the lawsuit was initially filed, a spokesperson for Trump commented, “We look forward to its prompt dismissal, to an award of legal sanctions against the plaintiff, and to receiving full payment from him of all of our legal fees responding to this meritless, bad faith case.”

In an interview with The Hill, the lawyer remarked, “Someone had to take the lead,” and added, “This is a scary, scary guy, and if he’s president, I think we’re all on the way to fascism.” He continued, “There’s no law that says we have to remain a democracy forever.”

New Hampshire and Michigan officials have also indicated their interest in the 14th Amendment clause 3, which disqualifies a public official from assuming office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States or provided “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

J. Michael Luttig, a former 4th Circuit Appeals Court Judge and a conservative, stated in his article for The Atlantic that Trump’s actions “place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause.”

Caplan expressed, “We’ll see whether or not the judges have the guts to follow the law.” He added, “The law is the law.”

Conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen highlighted that a crucial element of the case against Trump was his efforts to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to halt the counting of electoral votes and his “incendiary” speech encouraging followers to march to the Capitol on January 6.

In a letter, Free Speech for People argued, “Trump’s involvement in the violent attack on Congress to prevent the certification of democratic election results disqualifies him from holding any future public office.”

The challenge lies in the fact that trials are unlikely to conclude before the Republican primaries, even though a conviction would lend more credibility to future potential lawsuits regarding Trump’s candidacy and its legitimacy.