Castro's ingenious strategy centers on the 14th Amendment's anti-insurrection section, which bars anyone involved in rebellion against the U.S. from holding office. His argument: Trump's role in inciting the January 6th Capitol attack crosses that line.

But this unprecedented legal gambit faces major hurdles. Courts have dismissed similar voter-driven lawsuits for lack of "standing." As a direct Trump opponent, Castro asserts his injury gives him grounds to sue.

If the case proceeds, the next question is whether the clause is "self-executing" - enforceable without further congressional action. A ruling in Castro's favor could be a massive leap toward barring Trump's candidacy.

Yet the most significant obstacle may be proving an actual "insurrection" occurred on January 6th - a hotly disputed issue with massive political stakes.

Win or lose, Castro's lawsuit puts a little-known constitutional provision under a glaring spotlight. By challenging Trump, he gained media attention for his future presidential aspirations.

The outcome of this bold legal fight is uncertain. But one thing is clear - Castro's ingenious move could set a precedent with lasting effects on American politics and elections. His quest marks an unprecedented attempt to employ the courts to reshape the political landscape.