Former President Donald Trump speaks in Clinton Township, Mich., Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2023. (AP Photo/Mike Mulholland)

CHARLESTON — A Texas Republican candidate for president’s effort to keep former Republican president Donald Trump off the West Virginia ballot in 2024 was dealt a short-term setback Thursday.

In proposed findings and recommendations filed Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn recommended the denial of an emergency application for a restraining order and a request for an expedited preliminary injunction and preliminary bench trial filed last week by John Anthony Castro, a write-in candidate for the Republican nomination of President.

Castro is seeking a federal court order prohibiting Trump from being placed on West Virginia’s 2024 Republican primary ballot. Castro argues that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents Trump from holding future federal offices due to his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, which resulted in a riot at the U.S. Capitol Building by Trump supporters attempting to stop the certification of the 2020 election for President Joe Biden.

Section three of the 14th Amendment states that no person can be a federal office holder if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the federal government.

In his ruling, Aboulhosn said there was no need for an emergency restraining order or a preliminary injunction given that there were still three months until the January candidate filing period in West Virginia and eight months until the May 14 primary in the state. Castro is suing Trump and West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner.

“… (Castro) has failed to provide specific facts showing immediate and irreparable injury will occur prior to the defendants’ providing a response in opposition to his motion,” Aboulhosn wrote. “While he argues that he is ‘already suffering irreparable competitive injuries because Defendant Donald John Trump … is siphoning off votes and contributions’ from him, (Castro) fails to provide any specific facts in support of this allegation or forecast in what way this alleged damage may be impacted by the commencement of West Virginia’s presidential primary filing period.”

Aboulhosn’s recommendations still need to be considered by U.S. District Judge Irene Berger. Castro filed his lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Sept. 20. In a statement Wednesday, Warner said he would defend Trump’s right to be on the West Virginia ballot next year, but would abide by any future rulings from the federal courts.

“I will vigorously defend the Constitution and abide by the Supremacy Clause,” Warner said. “If the U.S. Supreme Court disqualifies a candidate, and that opinion is not limited to a specific jurisdiction, I will follow the Court’s direction.”

The news of the lawsuit was derided by multiple state Republican officials and candidates, including the West Virginia Republican Party. In a separate order Thursday, Aboulhosn granted a request by the state GOP to intervene in the lawsuit. The party is represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing other state Republican parties in similar lawsuits.

“The West Virginia Republican Party has a say in who the Republican nominees are going to be in the presidential election,” wrote attorney Jordan Sekulow in a post on the ACLJ website Wednesday. “The First Amendment right of a party to designate its candidates for its members in accordance with its own rules, and ultimately the voters’ right to choose, is under assault.”

In a separate filing Thursday, Castro objected to Aboulhosn’s recommendations and the order allowing the West Virginia Republican Party to participate in the lawsuit. Castro also attacked the involvement of the ACLJ.

“This is nothing more than a corrupt attempt to allow others to foot Defendant Donald John Trump’s mounting legal bills,” Castro wrote. “WVGOP has no interest in the judicial determination of eligibility and qualification. Moreover, the U.S. Magistrate’s willful blindness to the illegality of WVGOP utilizing a 501(c)(3) to defend the interests of Defendant Donald John Trump, which effectively makes Defendant Donald John Trump’s legal defense taxpayer subsidized, is repugnant to the rule of law.”