UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOE ALTER,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 24-478 (RDM) 

 

JOE ALTER,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 24-512 (RDM)

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Joe Alter filed the first of these pro se actions against former President Donald J. 

Trump on February 16, 2024. See Alter v. Trump, Civ. No. 24-478, Dkt. 1 at 1 (Compl.). 

Several days later, he filed the second action, which asserts the same claims. See Alter v. Trump, 

Civ. No. 24-512, Dkt. 1 (Compl.). Given this overlap, the Court will address both cases in a 

single opinion. 

Plaintiff’s complaints do not enumerate counts, but instead present several “legal 

questions,” namely: (1) “Should the question of whether an insurrection has occurred be resolved 

in the Federal Court system, and Ultimately the Supreme Court?”; (2) “Were events on January 

6, an attempted insurrection?”; and (3) “Did Donald Trump engage in or at least encourage and 
2

aid such acts?” Alter v. Trump, Civ. No. 24-478, Dkt. 1 at 5 (Compl. ¶¶ 14–16); Alter v. Trump, 

Civ. No. 24-512, Dkt. 1 at 5 (Compl. ¶¶ 14–16). The complaints ask the Court to declare: (1) 

that January 6, 2021 constituted an attempted insurrection; (2) that Donald Trump gave “aid and 

support to” that attempted insurrection; (3) that “Donald Trump may never again hold any office 

in and under the United States of America;” and (4) that “under the disqualification of 14sec3, 

Donald Trump is no longer protected from liability under the 1st Amendment’s immunities 

regarding political speech, and may be held accountable for lies he tells in furtherance of his 

ambitions to re-attain such an office.” Alter v. Trump, Civ. No. 24-512, Dkt. 1 at 8 (Compl. ¶¶

26–29); Alter v. Trump, Civ. No. 24-478, Dkt. 1 at 7–8 (Compl. ¶¶ 26–29).

The D.C. Circuit has recognized that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint 

under Rule 12(b)(6) where “it is patently obvious” that the plaintiff cannot “prevail[] on the facts 

alleged in his complaint.” Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 

1990). That rule applies, moreover, “[e]ven under a liberal pro se standard.” Strunk v. Obama, 

880 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2011); see also Perry v. Discover Bank, 514 F. Supp. 2d 94, 95 

(D.D.C. 2007). Here, even construing the complaints liberally, the Court concludes that “it is 

patently obvious” that they fail as a matter of law.

Plaintiff seemingly filed these actions in anticipation of what the Supreme Court might 

hold in Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024) (per curiam), which had been argued but not yet 

decided at that time. Compare id. (decided March 4, 2024), with Alter v. Trump, Civ. No. 24-

512, Dkt. 1 (Compl.) (filed February 20, 2024), and Alter v. Trump, Civ. No. 24-478, Dkt. 1 

(Compl.) (filed February 16, 2024). The Supreme Court has since issued its decision and has 

held that enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that Congress first 

enact implementing legislation pursuant to Section 5. Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. at 108–10, 
3 

117. That decision is binding on this Court, and it forecloses Plaintiff’s claims as a matter of 

law. 

Although the concurring Justices posited that the Court’s decision went further than 

necessary to resolve the question before it, which concerned only whether the States have 

independent authority to enforce Section 3, see id. at 117–18 (Barrett, J., concurring in part and 

concurring in the judgment); id. at 118–19 (Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., concurring in 

the judgment), five Justices took the more sweeping path and held that “Section 5 vests in 

Congress the power to enforce” Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, id. at 117 (per curiam) 

(emphasis in original). As the Court explained, the only legislative provisions that Congress has 

passed to enforce Section 3 are the now-repealed provisions of the Enforcement Act of 1870, 

which “authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court,” and a criminal 

provision codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which makes engaging in insurrection or rebellion, 

among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the 

United States. Id. at 114–15. Plaintiff neither asserts nor has a private right of action under 

§ 2383. Thus, in light of the Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, it is “patently obvious” that 

Plaintiff cannot prevail.

The Court will, accordingly, DISMISS Plaintiff’s complaints in their entirety. Separate 

orders will issue in both cases. 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Randolph D. Moss 

 RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

 United States District Judge 

Date: May 9, 2024