Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ex‑Chief Justices Unite to Defend Judicial Independence

On Bill of Rights Day, Keep Our Republic launches Alliance to restore trust in courts, safeguard democracy, and highlight judges’ duty to apply the law impartially.

News

Ex‑Chief Justices Unite to Defend Judicial Independence
a wooden gaven sitting on top of a white counter
Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

On Tuesday, Bill of Rights Day, Keep Our Republic (KOR), a nonpartisan civic education organization committed to preserving American democracy, announces the launch of the Alliance of Former Chief Justices—a nonpartisan initiative committed to educating the public about the role of the judiciary and safeguarding the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founders.

Keep Our Republic’s Alliance of Former Chief Justices will lead a broad public-education effort, working with civic organizations, the media, educational institutions, policymakers, and the legal community to explain how courts function and why they matter. This outreach will highlight the constitutional role of courts, the importance of judicial independence, judges’ duty to apply the law impartially, and how the separation of powers protects Americans’ fundamental freedoms.


“Trust in our institutions is declining, and that is especially dangerous for the judiciary, which depends on public confidence to ensure that its decisions are accepted and obeyed,” said Thomas Phillips, former Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. “It is important for Americans to remember that judges are very different from elected officials: they apply the law, not politics. As former chief justices, we can speak freely about why that distinction matters and why an independent judiciary is essential to our democracy.”

Bill of Rights Day marks the ratification of the first ten amendments—protections that rely on courts capable of applying the law fairly and free from political pressure. The justices note that this day is a fitting moment to launch an effort to reinforce the rule of law and public trust in the judiciary.

“As a lawyer for over 50 years and a former Chief Justice and Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, I am deeply concerned over partisan attacks on judges and attempts to undermine the rule of law,” said Barbara Pariente, former Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court.” Our country was founded on the deeply important principle of three equal branches of government and checks and balances. At present, those principles are being undermined in a highly partisan and political way. Sitting judges and justices, both in the state and federal courts, cannot speak out for themselves. It is important that those of us who are retired justices and chief justices use our voices to speak out for them.”

Keep Our Republic’s Alliance of Former Chief Justices will lead a broad public-education effort, working with civic organizations, the media, educational institutions, policymakers, and the legal community to explain how courts function and why they matter. This outreach will highlight the constitutional role of courts, the importance of judicial independence, judges’ duty to apply the law impartially, and how the separation of powers protects Americans’ fundamental freedoms.

“I am joining this educational effort because we are at a moment when the principles of our democracy and the rule of law face stresses unlike any I have seen in my lifetime,” said Dan Wathen, former Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court. “It is critically important that everyone understands what is at stake in safeguarding our constitutional system built on the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and equal justice under law."

The launch comes at a time when judges across the nation face heightened political pressure and public attacks aimed at influencing outcomes or casting the judiciary as partisan. The justices caution that while debate over decisions is healthy civic engagement, portraying judges as “politicians in robes” undermines equal justice and weakens the constitutional safeguards that protect all Americans.

“We are facing unprecedented challenges to the rule of law. Former state chief justices have a unique perspective on the critical role of the judiciary in our democracy,” said Mark E. Recktenwald, former Chief Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court. “We each led court systems that, in total, deliver equal justice to millions of people each year. Those courts make decisions based on the law and facts of each case, regardless of the power or popularity of the parties. We need to explain to the public that our judicial system has integrity and is worthy of the trust and confidence of the American people. That’s why I strongly support the Alliance of Former Chief Justices.”

In their founding statement, the justices underscore that the U.S. and state constitutions divide governmental power among three branches to prevent the concentration of authority—what James Madison called “the very definition of tyranny.” Judges, they emphasize, differ from elected officials because they serve only one constituent: the rule of law.

“I have been a public servant most of my professional life, and the maintenance of democratic institutions is a critical part of my mission. Public servants, by raised voice and action, must help the public reaffirm their trust in their government. To that end, each branch of government must be accountable to the people,” said Conrad Mallett, former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. “Every day, the judiciary acts as a check on the other two branches, and the public’s awareness that independent jurists—unconnected to the parties and focused solely on answering the questions presented—is essential to maintaining trust in their government.”

This article was written in part from a press release by KOR.


Read More

The Game of Power: Epstein Files Reveal Players

A photo of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is displayed as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on February 11, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Game of Power: Epstein Files Reveal Players

The Epstein files are spelling trouble for elites everywhere.

The 3.5 million emails released recently by the Department of Justice concerning Jeffrey Epstein tell a tale of powerful men, and some women, committing terrible crimes with complete impunity. No wonder people are calling for removing them from power—including President Donald Trump.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

In this handout, the mug shot of Jeffrey Epstein, 2019.

(Photo by Kypros/Getty Images)

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

During my time as a Navy pilot, my squadron held focus groups that revealed most women didn’t feel comfortable reporting sexual assault because all our squadron’s Victim Advocates were male. Yet when a female colleague sought certification as a Victim Advocate, our male Department Head called it a poor excuse for missing flight hours. I had been in his focus group and caught him rolling his eyes while sexual assault was discussed. This Department Head had a reputation for being predatory with female junior officers; he had conducted an affair with one on his last deployment and perhaps because he divorced his wife to marry her, questions of adultery and fraternization were conveniently ignored. That did not stop him from continuing to make passes at younger female pilots, but I never felt brave enough to say anything. He is now a Commanding Officer.

This is not an isolated story of bad behavior but a blueprint for how an abuse of power can occur without consequences. We are watching this same blueprint unfold on a national scale with the agonizingly slow release of the Epstein files, which has been met with a curious, telling silence or outright dismissal from many of the world’s most powerful men. The Epstein files are a schematic of an architecture that allows any villain with enough wealth or influence to operate with impunity–and we are still not even debating the file contents, but whether we will simply see them fully! Many documents remain undisclosed, the release date has long passed, and the DOJ, catastrophically, failed to properly redact the names of victims, which Congressman Raskin calls “either spectacular incompetence and sloppiness on their part, or…a deliberate threat to other survivors who are thinking about coming forward...” When people who speak out see no justice–and often experience the opposite–it discourages others from speaking out. As long as no one speaks out, the abuse continues.

Keep ReadingShow less
When the Rule of Law Meets Political Pressure
woman in dress holding sword figurine

When the Rule of Law Meets Political Pressure

For most Americans, the phrase “rule of law” sounds like a civic virtue—important, but abstract. Yet in a functioning democracy, the rule of law is not a slogan. It is an operating system. It determines whether power is constrained by rules that apply to everyone, or whether rules become tools used selectively by those who hold power.

The rule of law is tested not in calm seasons but in storms—when leaders face incentives to bend institutions toward short-term advantage. In those moments, the central question is rarely “Is the Constitution still there?” It is: Are our institutions still willing and able to enforce it consistently, even when enforcement is unpopular?

Keep ReadingShow less
Maxwell Is the Prosecutable Person
Ghislaine Maxwell, September 20, 2013
(Photo by Paul Zimmerman/WireImage)

Maxwell Is the Prosecutable Person

A story like Jeffrey Epstein’s is easy to treat as an anomaly—one ambitious man, one grotesque circle, one horrific chapter of American life that many would rather seal shut and forget. But I keep coming back to a harder question underneath it: do we actually believe in equal accountability, or only in accountability for the people we can easily punish?

This isn’t a left-right question. It’s a legitimacy question. A democracy can’t function if power purchases are exempted and proximity is treated as guilt. The details change depending on the arena—policing, corruption, finance, exploitation—but a familiar pattern repeats: our institutions tend to prosecute what is simple, visible, and winnable, and struggle to reach what is complex, insulated, and costly.

Keep ReadingShow less