On February 22, North Carolina filed this brief in Cawthorn v Circosta, e.d., 5:22cv-50. This is the lawsuit over whether the state has the ability to make a decision on whether congressional candidates should be barred from a ballot because they don’t meet the qualifications listed in the Fourteenth Amendment, section three, concerning insurrection. The hearing is February 28.
The brief says the Socialist Party congressman from Wisconsin, Victor Berger, was unseated by the U.S. House in 1919 for violating the Espionage Act. The state cites this example to show that the amnesty acts passed in the 19th century for ex-Confederates did not eliminate the force of section three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If the judge is also well versed in history, and isn’t too ideologically biased, they’d likely find NC’s use of Berger’s unseating superfluous. Berger should have never been charged under the Espionage Act to begin with, and never kicked out of Congress via the 14th Amendment; Socialists and other peace activists a century ago were being charged with “Espionage” for anti-war speeches and activism, despite the massive violation of First Amendment rights which such charges entailed. It has little bearing on whether Cawthorn and others can be kicked out of Congress or prevented from running, especially since there are key differences between the two cases (ie, speaking out against war, versus trying to overturn election results).