IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Governor JB Pritzker delivers his FY2027 state budget proposal at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Ill. on Wednesday, Feb. 18th, 2026.
Angeles Ponpa, Illinois Latino News
Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions
Feb 22, 2026
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker used part of his State of the State address Wednesday to criticize federal immigration enforcement actions and contrast Illinois’ approach with federal policy.
The annual address largely centered on the governor’s proposed state budget and affordability agenda, but Pritzker devoted his last remarks to immigration, framing the issue as a broader test of national values.
“The problem for Donald Trump and Stephen Miller was that Illinoisans did notice,” Pritzker said. “Last year was not the first time a President has tried to subdue the Illinois population with hired thugs.”
Pritzker also referenced remarks from his address a year earlier, saying recent federal actions answered his warning about escalating enforcement tactics.
“Masked, unaccountable federal agents — with little training — occupied our streets, brutalized our people, tear gassed kids and cops, kidnapped parents in front of their children, detained and arrested and at times attempted to deport US citizens, and killed innocent Americans in the streets,” Pritzker said.
The governor’s comments echoed historic tensions between Illinois leaders and federal intervention. He gave the example of the 1894 Pullman labor strike where workers walked off their railroad jobs to protest a percentage cut in their wages. At the time, President Grover Cleveland sent thousands of federal marshals and troops into the state to suppress unrest, an action condemned at the time by Illinois Gov. John Peter Altgeld as federal overreach.
“Illinois was the canary in the coal mine for what we saw happen in Minnesota,” Pritzker said. “It’s a playbook as old as the game – overwhelm communities, provoke fear, suggest that those tasked with enforcing the law are also above it, and drip authoritarianism bit by bit into our veins in the hopes that we won’t notice we are being poisoned by it.”
According to Pritzker, federal policies have cost Illinois residents $8.4 billion through tariff taxes on working families and small businesses, trade wars devastating farmers, cuts to healthcare, food assistance and education, and increased bureaucracy on states such as Illinois.
Pritzker also described community responses across Illinois, pointing to residents supporting immigrant neighbors, including volunteers assisting families, parishioners protecting places of worship and residents demonstrating in public spaces.
He cited examples he said showed public reaction across the state, including bicyclists in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood buying food from street vendors so they could safely leave, parishioners forming human chains outside churches so immigrants could worship, and parents organizing outside schools during enforcement activity.
He concluded by urging residents to view the immigration debate beyond party politics, but rather about whether Illinois will be a state of empathy.
“Love is found in every act of courage – large and small – taken to preserve the country we once knew. You will find it in homes and schools and churches and art. It is there; it has not been squashed,” Pritzker said.
“What you choose to arm yourself with in this fight – love or hate – exposes which side you are fighting on. Only the weakest of people believe that love is the weakest of weapons. And it turns out that love actually is all around – and that those who think that cruelty can destroy it, are incapable of understanding the power of a nation moved by it.”
Lawmakers will continue budget negotiations in the spring legislative session.
Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions was first published on Illinois Latino News and republished with permission.
Angeles Ponpa is a journalist based in Illinois.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The Supreme Court is a threat to American democracy
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Court Blocks Trump’s Tariffs, Triggering a Familiar Outrage Cycle
Feb 21, 2026
The Supreme Court’s decision striking down the administration’s sweeping global tariffs was one of the most consequential rulings of the year. In a 6–3 opinion, the Court held that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad taxes on imported goods, a power the Constitution “very clearly” assigns to Congress.
The immediate effect of the ruling is likely to be felt by consumers, businesses, and the wider economy. For consumers, the decision could lower prices on a range of imported goods that had become more expensive under the tariffs. Businesses that rely on international supply chains may see reduced costs and greater predictability, making it easier to plan and invest. At the same time, industries that benefited from tariff protections could face increased competition from abroad. The broader economic impact includes potential adjustments in trade relationships and market stability, as well as the possibility that the government will need to refund billions of dollars in tariff revenue.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the statute at issue “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” reaffirming that emergency powers cannot be stretched to bypass Congress on matters of taxation. The ruling immediately halted a major pillar of the administration’s trade agenda and raised complex questions about billions of dollars in tariff revenue that may need to be refunded.
The reaction inside the White House was quick, intense, and unsurprising. According to multiple reports, the president called the ruling a “disgrace” during a meeting with governors, saying he had a “backup plan” and expressing anger toward the courts. At this time, it is unclear what specific measures the president’s 'backup plan' might involve. White House officials have not provided details, leaving open whether he intends to pursue new executive actions, seek legislative support, or challenge the ruling through other legal channels. He reportedly cut short the meeting after receiving the news, telling aides he needed to work on his response. In public remarks later today, he condemned the decision as “terrible” and “totally defective,” and said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.” He went further, singling out Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed during his first term, calling them “an embarrassment to their families.” Elsewhere, he dismissed those who ruled against him as “fools and lap dogs” and “slimeballs.” These personal attacks on members of the highest court underscore how Trump's disagreement is recast not as a constitutional process but as a personal betrayal.
These statements fit a pattern the country has seen before: when institutional checks assert themselves, the reply is not acceptance, but escalation. For example, following the Supreme Court's 2017 decision blocking the initial version of the travel ban, the administration swiftly denounced the ruling and sought alternative paths to achieve its goal. Similarly, in 1974, after the Court unanimously ordered President Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, there were immediate and intense reactions from the White House and its supporters. Judicial review becomes an obstacle. Constitutional limits become an affront. And the public is pulled once again into a cycle where outrage eclipses understanding, and the noise of the moment drowns out the quiet, essential work of self‑government.
But this is precisely where our attention and our civic courage matter most. A democracy cannot function if its institutions are treated as enemies. It cannot endure if constitutional boundaries are seen as inconveniences. And it cannot thrive if every ruling, every check, every limit is met with a performance designed to inflame rather than inform.
The antidote to this cycle is not more outrage. It is clear. It is steadiness. It is the willingness to say that the separation of powers is not a technicality; it is the moral architecture of a free society. We must remember that the separation of powers is not a technical detail but the moral backbone of a free society. When the Court rules, it is not picking sides but upholding its duty. If leaders answer with anger, the task of holding steady falls to journalists, citizens, and civic institutions. We must keep the frame steady.
When the Court rules, it is not taking sides; it is doing what the Constitution asks of it. And when leaders respond with fury rather than respect, the responsibility falls to the rest of us to respond appropriately
Concrete actions matter. We can support institutional respect in practical ways: by calmly engaging in public conversations, correcting misinformation when we see it, and seeking out and sharing reporting that explains, rather than inflames, the issues at stake. Citizens can write to elected officials calling for thoughtful discourse about court decisions, attend local forums to foster civil discussion, or encourage civic education in schools and communities. Each of these efforts, however small, helps keep democracy's framework intact.
We can choose to see these instances not as episodes in a never‑ending drama, but as reminders of what is at stake. We can choose to raise the stories that call us back to our better selves — the citizens who show up with fortitude, the institutions that hold firm, the communities that refuse to be divided by spectacle.
Concrete actions matter. We can support institutional respect in practical ways: by calmly engaging in public conversations, correcting misinformation when we see it, and seeking out and sharing reporting that explains, rather than inflames, the issues at stake. Citizens can write to elected officials calling for thoughtful discourse about court decisions, attend local forums to foster civil discussion, or encourage civic education in schools and communities. Each of these efforts, however small, helps keep democracy's framework intact.
Most importantly, we can see these moments not as scenes in a never-ending drama of the Trump administration, but as signals of what truly matters. We can lift up stories that call us to act with integrity: citizens showing resilience, institutions standing firm, and communities refusing to be torn apart by spectacle. Above all, we can keep asking the question that outlasts any single decision or headline: What kind of nation do we want to become?
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
ICE agents search a home on January 28, 2026, in Circle Pines, Minnesota.
(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Warrantless home searches sparked the American Revolution – now ICE wants to bring them back
Feb 21, 2026
In 1761, James Otis Jr., a 36-year-old lawyer, ignited an early spark of the American Revolution when he resigned his post as Massachusetts Advocate General to represent merchants challenging the British use of overly broad warrants. Though he lost the case, his speech electrified the colonies: John Adams later wrote that Otis’s argument was the moment when “the Child Independence was born.”
That struggle over arbitrary warrants is no longer a historical footnote, now that the federal government is reviving the very practice Otis condemned. An internal ICE memo dated May 12, 2025, authorizes agents to enter homes solely on the basis of an “administrative warrant,” without prior judicial approval. The memo acknowledged that this marked a departure from historic ICE practices but claimed that DHS had “recently determined that the U.S. Constitution…[did] not prohibit relying on administrative warrants”.
In early January, ICE agents were documented forcibly entering homes on the basis of administrative warrants alone (AP News). The flagrant violation of a key constitutional right — the Fourth Amendment’s “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” — happened in plain sight. Even today’s conservative Supreme Court reaffirmed last month the “strong presumption against warrantless intrusions into the home.” Case v. Montana.
Rather than backing away from these practices, the administration has now publicly doubled down. On February 4, the Department of Homeland Security issued a lengthy statement defending the use of administrative warrants and rejecting the claim that ICE is violating the Fourth Amendment. DHS asserted that judicial warrants are unnecessary for immigration arrests and suggested that undocumented individuals are not entitled to the same constitutional protections — a position that runs directly counter to decades of Supreme Court precedent. Congressional Republicans have echoed this stance, calling any proposal to require judicial warrants a “non‑starter.” Far from retreating, the government is entrenching itself.
Origins of the Fourth Amendment
In the lead‑up to the American Revolution, British officials used general warrants, known as writs of assistance, that allowed for the search of any property without the need to show probable cause. This practice outraged the American colonists, who believed that general warrants enabled tyranny by empowering officers to enter homes and businesses at will.
The Fourth Amendment was adopted specifically to prevent arbitrary searches, seizures, and intrusions into one’s home. Its protections reflect an intentional transition away from general, unlimited writs to specific, judicially approved warrants. Born from the Revolution, the Fourth Amendment is a cornerstone of American governance. If ICE agents are being told they may disregard this foundational principle and violate the Fourth Amendment, we should all be alarmed. But let there be no confusion — an internal government memo should not be used to override our Constitution.
Administrative Warrants Are Vulnerable to Overuse and Abuse
The administrative warrants that ICE claims give them the authority to enter homes ironically resemble the warrants used by the British. Writs of assistance were open‑ended search warrants granted to British customs officers to search for smuggled goods; they were not limited by time, person, or location, and no probable cause was required. This meant that the British could use these writs at their will, without supervision or oversight.
The specificity requirements built into the Fourth Amendment — particularity and probable cause — are key to protecting people from searches that are too broad or arbitrary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that these requirements are intended to prevent general exploratory searches, an emphasis that has shaped modern American law enforcement practices.
Different kinds of warrants, like arrest warrants (for people) and search warrants (for property), ensure proper procedures are employed based on the government’s specified interest and authority. The use of administrative warrants to carry out immigration arrests is not new, but these warrants have traditionally been understood to authorize only the arrest of a specific individual—not to allow officers to enter private homes or businesses without consent.
The leaked ICE memo, however, sanctions a clear departure from constitutionally bound practices. These administrative warrants authorize agents to enter a home without consent and, if necessary, by force, regardless of the presence or identity of persons inside. As such, while ICE claims that administrative warrants are used only to enforce final removal orders, those orders are issued against individuals, not households. When ICE forcibly enters a household using an administrative warrant, they are violating the Fourth Amendment rights of everyone in that home, even those not listed in the removal order.
Administrative warrants are not signed by judges, bypassing judicial oversight as an essential check on law enforcement power.
In addition to probable cause and specificity requirements, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to be signed by a neutral judge or magistrate to ensure an independent check on law enforcement. Judges determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support probable cause and ensure that the warrant’s scope is narrowly focused to permit only minimal incursions on people’s rights. Judicial oversight functions as an essential check on government power.
ICE’s administrative warrants, by contrast, are procedural forms approved internally by immigration authorities with no independent judicial review. This brings us closer to the very tyranny we sought to escape when we founded our country.
If we would not tolerate officers forcibly entering our homes without cause during the Revolution, we must certainly reject this conduct today when it is expressly prohibited by our Constitution.
Why This Matters
Reference to the American Revolution here is not intended as a history lesson; rather, it reminds us that the use of general warrants was one of the foundational grievances that animated our Constitution and the founding of our country. Americans across the colonies who had little else in common agreed that the warrants used by the British would not be tolerated in the new United States of America. Even then, the sanctity of the home and the right to privacy were seen as core American principles, shared across the political spectrum.
That consensus has not changed. Standing up for our constitutional rights and shared American principles is not political.
Our Constitution was intentionally written, born out of lived experiences of tyranny and authoritarianism. Our founders understood that placing limits on government power — especially when it comes to the privacy of the home — was fundamental to ensuring democracy and preventing tyranny. The current government’s attempts to ignore the Fourth Amendment fly in the face of our constitutional democracy and disregard the very foundations of our national ethos.
Today, as DHS publicly defends practices that erode judicial oversight and Congress refuses to impose even the most basic guardrails, we are confronted with a stark question: Will we allow the very abuses that sparked the American Revolution to be revived under the banner of immigration enforcement? The answer will determine not only how we treat the most vulnerable among us, but whether we still recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Fourth Amendment was written to restrain government power in moments exactly like this.
Our willingness to defend it now will reveal whether we still believe in the promise our founders fought to secure.
Amanda Cats-Baril is Project Manager and Content Strategist for the Meeting the Moment initiative of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Ken Burns’ The American Revolution highlights why America’s founders built checks and balances—an urgent reminder as Congress, the courts, and citizens confront growing threats to democratic governance.
Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash
Partial Shutdown; Congress Asserts Itself a Little
Feb 17, 2026
DHS Shutdown
As expected, the parties in the Senate could not come to an agreement on DHS funding and now the agency will be shut down. Sort of.
So much money was appropriated for DHS, and ICE and CBP specifically, in last year's reconciliation bill, that DHS could continue to operate with little or no interruption. Other parts of DHS like FEMA and the TSA might face operational cuts or shutdowns.
You might think that only ICE and CBP could operate without interruption, but as this Wall Street Journal article notes, DHS Secretary Noem has a pretty freewheeling approach to how to spend the agency's money.
The article also notes Noem's antipathy towards FEMA which suggests that that sub-agency of DHS would receive no special help while new funding is unavailable.
Could Congress appropriate funds for FY2026 all of DHS except for ICE & CBP? Sure. Rep. DeLauro (D-CT3) proposed exactly that this week. But so far her proposal has not garnered any interest.
If Congress took that route, ICE and CBP would still have, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), 750% more money than they had before the reconciliation bill passed.
Both chambers of Congress are out next week so no movement is expected until the week of February 23 at the absolute earliest.
Tariffs
Last year, Speaker Johnson (R-LA4) used a Rules Committee rule to block any votes in the House that would object to the President's use of tariffs. Well, that rule ended this week. When Johnson tried the maneuver again this week it failed 214-217. And that opened the door to the first of probably many successful votes against the President's vast new tariff structure.
Because the Senate would also have to agree to the resolution to end the tariffs and then the President would have to sign it, it's extremely unlikely that this vote will lead to an end to any tariffs. But it is one of the very few instances of the Republican majority not squashing an objection to something the President really wants and is thus notable.
DOJ Spying on Lawmakers Reviewing Epstein Files
Speaker Johnson has become something of a broken record whenever he's asked about some administration overstep into Congressional authority: he says he doesn't know anything about it and/or that it's probably fine. So it was a bit of a surprise this week when he had heard the news that the Department of Justice was spying on legislators' search histories during their reviews of Epstein files and said it was "inappropriate". Not exactly a robust defense of Congressional power, but a notable departure from his usual pattern.
House Passed a Few Other Bills
None of these bills are anywhere near becoming a law. They first have to pass the Senate.
- H.R. 1531: PROTECT Taiwan Act, which would make it the policy of the United States to prevent China from participating in certain international organizations if the President determines that Taiwan or the interests of the United States are being threatened, passed 395-2.
- H.R. 6644: Housing for the 21st Century Act, passed 390-9. This is a large bill with lots of parts, but the Bipartisan Policy Center has an explainer.
- H.R. 2189: Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, which would would amend the definition of firearm in the Gun Control Act of 1968 to exclude certain nonlethal projectile devices, passed 233-185.
- H.R. 3617: Securing America’s Critical Minerals Supply Act, which would direct the Department of Energy to assess vulnerabilities in critical energy resource supply chains, including critical minerals and rare earth elements, and develop strategies to address disruptions and over-reliance on adversarial nations (sponsor press release), passed 223-206.
- S. 1383: Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which would enact a host of new requirements to register to vote, passed 218-213. This bill, despite originating in the Senate, still has to go back to the Senate for another vote because originally S. 1383 was about something totally different. The House substituted in new text about voting registrations, changed the bill name and now it has to go back to the Senate.
- H.R. 261: Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025, which would prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from prohibiting, or requiring any permit or other authorization for, the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have been authorized by a Federal or State agency, passed 218-212.
One New Law
- H.J.Res. 142: Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025, which prohibits Washington, D.C. from opting out of tax cuts passed last year, passed 49-47. It goes next to the President for signing.
Amy West is the GovTrack research and communications manager.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More