Dewald v. Trump
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-07833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dewald v. Trump, Judge Failla ordered Dewald to explain why he should amend his complaint after a Supreme Court decision.
Jerome W. Dewald must file the required explanatory letter by April 1, 2024. The requests concerning amendment and service of the remaining defendants were not decided by this order.
What happened
In Dewald v. Trump, Plaintiff Jerome W. Dewald asked to amend his complaint after the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson. That decision held that Congress alone has the power to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Dewald also asked for permission to correct claimed problems with serving the remaining defendants, or for a ruling that those defendants had been effectively served through their participation in the electronic filing system. Defendant Donald J. Trump separately sent the court a letter about the Supreme Court’s decision.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered Dewald to file a letter by April 1, 2024, explaining in detail why he should be allowed to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Judge Failla said the court would address the service issues after deciding whether to allow the amendment; the order did not decide either request.
The detailed version
- Dewald v. Trump · No. 1:23-cv-07833
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 7, 2024
Background
The court received a March 6, 2024 letter from Defendant Donald J. Trump concerning the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Anderson. The opinion states that the Supreme Court held that the power to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment rests solely with Congress.
The court also received a March 6 letter from Plaintiff Jerome W. Dewald. Dewald requested: (1) permission to amend his complaint in light of Trump v. Anderson; (2) permission to correct alleged deficiencies in serving the remaining defendants; and/or (3) a ruling that the New York Attorney General’s clients had been effectively served because the attorney general was participating in the proceedings through the electronic filing system.
Court’s Action
The court ordered Dewald to file a letter by April 1, 2024, explaining in detail why he should receive permission to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The order specifically directed Dewald to address why amendment should be allowed in view of the Anderson decision.
The court stated that it would address Dewald’s request to correct service deficiencies involving the remaining defendants after deciding whether to allow the amendment. The order did not grant or deny permission to amend, decide whether service was effective, or reach the underlying legal issues in the complaint.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued a procedural order requiring further explanation from Dewald and postponing consideration of the service-related request. The classification is procedural because the court directed a filing and deferred the requests without deciding the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.