Filed Date: Sept. 4, 2020
Closed Date: Nov. 20, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case alleging that Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution precluded individuals whose parents were not citizens from taking the office of President or Vice-President.
On August 13, 2020, plaintiff, a private individual, filed a suit against a U.S. Senator of California, seeking an injunction disallowing the defendant from entering the Office of the Vice-Presidency on the grounds that she was not a “Natural Born Citizen” under Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and under the eligibility requirement of the Twelfth Amendment. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction against the defendant from taking the Office of the President or Vice-President until the Natural Born Citizen requirement in the Constitution was removed. This case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and assigned to U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that “no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The Twelfth Amendment requires that, to be eligible to take the Office of the Vice-President, the candidate must meet the same eligibility requirements to take the Office of the President; meaning that the candidate for Vice-President must also be a natural born citizen. The plaintiff claimed that to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth. This interpretation would render the defendant ineligible to take Office as Vice-President, because neither of her parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth.
On October 26, 2020, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion was granted on November 10, 2020. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s alleged injury of a potential harm to national security was not particularized to him and thus was unpersuasive and lacked standing. Furthermore, the court reasoned that no set of additional facts would allow this claim to be brought and thus has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiffs appealed on November 19, 2020 (docket no. 20-7109). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the lower court's decision on February 5, 2021.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
David Gueye (7/19/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18429015/parties/laity-v-harris/
Attorney, Jonathan Rubin, (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Stephen R. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Steve W. (District of Columbia)
Anderson, Justin (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Kenneth A. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18429015/laity-v-harris/
Last updated Jan. 24, 2026, 6:45 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 4, 2020
Closing Date: Nov. 20, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Private individual on behalf of voters in America.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:20-cv-02511
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 21-07109
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 20-07109
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: