LatinoJustice works to create a more just society by using and challenging the rule of law to secure transformative, equitable and accessible justice, by empowering our community and by fostering leadership through advocacy and education.
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
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a signing ceremony for the “Secure America Act” in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 10, 2026.
(Ken Cedeno/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)
The Iranian regime does not fear Trump
Jun 12, 2026
Back in 2012, President Barack Obama issued a statement at a press conference that would change his presidency and his legacy forever.
It was a year into what would become Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s brutal and protracted war on his own people, a war that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives, empower Iran and Russia, and destabilize much of the region.
Obama said then of U.S. intervention, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to the other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
But, of course, it didn’t.
In August 2013, Assad ordered a devastating sarin gas attack in Ghouta which killed at least 1,400 people, many of them children. It was a defiant and indefensible move that clearly crossed our red line.
Obama at first announced there would be a targeted military strike in response, but ultimately decided to pivot to a diplomatic deal, reaching a much-derided agreement with Russia to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.
Syria hailed the move as a “historic American retreat,” and to this day, foreign policy experts argue that Obama’s capitulation weakened America’s credibility abroad. Even Obama has expressed his regrets over Syria, and what New York Times columnist Nick Kristof called “his worst mistake.”
When a president speaks, the world listens…and learns. And our current president is realizing that the hard way.
President Trump’s ill-conceived war in Iran has dragged on for more than 100 days now, and shows no signs of concluding. That’s not merely because Trump seems totally out-maneuvered by a regime that’s been planning a war of contrition with the U.S. for nearly 20 years, but because he is no longer believed.
For nearly a decade, Trump has been threatening Iran with an often bellicose and cartoonish mix of social media threats, warnings and ultimatums. Back in his first term, he threatened to target 52 Iranian cultural sites (and then backed down); he threatened Iranian “obliteration” via Twitter (and then backed down); and he posted in all caps, “CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE” (and then backed down).
And again in his second term, since starting the war, Trump’s issued more threats: “A civilization will die, never to be brought back again,” and “hell will reign down on [Iran].” He’s threatened the “complete demolition” of Iran’s power plants, oil wells, and bridges, and to bomb the country “back to the Stone Age.”
Trump’s threatened to stop and start the war countless times, and this week, Fox’s Trey Yingst shared that he’s once again threatening to “bomb the sh*t” out of Iran if they fail to reach a peace deal, a deal Trump has been promising since the start of the war three months ago was “close.” Thursday morning, Trump threatened to bomb Iran’s defense systems and “assume total control of its oil and gas markets.”
To be clear, Trump’s threats of genocide are totally inappropriate and may even enter war crimes territory, but his lack of follow through has also emboldened Iran. They’ve watched Trump issue threat after threat for years, while fumbling through both diplomatic and military channels to reach some kind of deal that would help the U.S. save face. Meanwhile, we are no closer to a nuke-free Iran, a liberated Iranian people, or regime change than we were before the war started.
On the global stage, not only isn’t he feared, he’s not even believed anymore. What this means for Iran is anyone’s guess. But if past is prologue, “Trump Always Chickens Out” — TACO — could end up defining his legacy more than anything else.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A look at America's growing crisis of trust, rising inequality, technology's impact, and how founding principles can help renew democracy.
Tetra Images / Getty Images
People Are Hurting: The U.S. Needs to Return to Our Founding Principles
Jun 11, 2026
There are many ways in which our country is currently struggling, both from a government perspective and from the people's perspective. There is no shortage of articles or studies detailing the ways in which the country and its leaders are failing us.
A recent article by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times discussed the report of the State of the Nation Project—written by a bipartisan group of experts—that assessed the state of our country on 31 measures. Bottom line, it found that too many people do not feel good about their lives, about other people, or our institutions. This is a nationwide phenomenon; the worst performers may be red states in the South, but liberal states in the North and West have the same problems. And it's not a function of prosperous versus less-prosperous states.
So what is the problem? When people don't feel good about themselves, about others, or the institutions of government, it is evidence of a malaise of the spirit. Given that our country has the worst income inequality since the days of the robber barons in the late 1800s, given the ever-increasing role of technology in our lives (screen time and AI) and its negative impact on our psyche, and given the angry negativity of the President we've had for 6 of the last 10 years, it is not surprising to me that people feel the way they do.
It is also not surprising that people in more liberal and prosperous states don't fare much better because the above three factors are present everywhere. For example, certain states may be more prosperous overall and yet have worse income inequality than states that are not prosperous overall.
1. We can't do anything about the increasing impact of technology in the life of our country and in our work lives. We live in a global economy, and we need to make use of the technology that is available to others in order to remain competitive and have a strong economy. We do, however, have control of technology in our personal lives and in the lives of our children. And there is movement in that direction in several states.
But even without state rules about the use of smartphones and computers by children, both in school and out, parents have the ability to set standards for their children and themselves. It is important, though, that such rules are not perceived by children as disciplinary or arbitrary; the rules must be consistent with the general ethos of the family.
2. The government certainly can do something about the increasing income inequality. The most basic cause of increasing income inequality is that the income of corporate CEOs has skyrocketed in the past few decades while the income of corporate workers has stagnated, adjusted for inflation.
While taxing the rich is one way of redistributing income and supporting government programs, what we really need to do is put more dollars into the hands of workers, and for that, we need now, as in the growth years of the 20th century, strong unions. Government, when led by Republicans, has done much to weaken unions, and the impact has been grave on the working man.
Corporate leaders say that because of globalization and competition from low-wage countries, they must keep American wages down. But if you look at the increase in profits of corporations during this period, you'll see there is plenty of money around to pay workers more despite globalization. Investors just won't be happy if profits are lowered.
3. Finally, the government can, with new leaders, reset the ethos of the country. It can return our country to the ethos of the Founding Fathers and to our founding principles. Those are principles that are brimming with positive spirit and hope. Look at the words, again, of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”
There is not a negative thought present. It is that spirit with which our government and the people need to be reborn and reinvigorated.
Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address that the nation should dedicate itself "to a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." We do have a government "of the people" in that the people—or at least some of them—vote for their representatives. "By the people" is more problematic; in a country as large as ours, it is truly impossible for the people to be directly involved, other than by choosing their representatives.
But in too many ways, we do not have government "for the people." Instead, the government is first and foremost for corporations and the rich. Certainly, the government does much to support the average person, people of color, and the poor, but Congress has never had as its guiding principle "government for the people."
The need to return to our founding principles is central to the Mission statement that I proposed for the Democratic Party in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, and have promoted for the last 20 years:
“To build a country of greater opportunity where:
- each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: ‘that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’ ;
- government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration—‘to secure these rights’—; and
- all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure these rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”
The words of the Declaration of Independence are the moral philosophy, the heart, the soul of American democracy. This is, or at least until recently was, America’s common faith. Democrats must restore that faith and spirit in the people.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump Justice Department faces scrutiny over alleged prosecutorial misconduct, political pressure, and threats to the rule of law and judicial integrity.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images
Is There Anything That Trump’s Justice Department Lawyers Won’t Do?
Jun 11, 2026
There was a time when working for the United States Department of Justice might have been a lawyer’s dream. Speaking on behalf of the United States, working with people who were dedicated to preserving the rule of law and upholding the highest standards of professionalism, not a bad gig.
As Harvard Law School once explained, the department offered lawyers an unparalleled “opportunity to serve the public in a meaningful way while carrying out the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) mandate to ‘pursue justice’ every day…” Not a bad gig.
But that was then.
We know by now that the Trump Justice Department seems to have a new mission: Do what the president tells you. Accomplish what he wants you to accomplish, by hook or by crook if necessary.
Our democracy and the rule of law depend on the integrity and judgment of the public officials responsible for preserving them. While it is not a sexy political issue, voters should demand that those running for Congress in November prioritize restoring professionalism to the Justice Department.
They should be asked to ensure that the department again embraces three core principles: No investigations or prosecutions for political purposes. Respect for the judicial process and, as former Attorney General Robert Jackson once said about the role of the federal prosecutor, “while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement, you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.”
Justice Department lawyers who violate those principles must pay a steep price for doing so. And the department's internal culture needs revitalization. Congress created the department and gave it its mandate. Congress has the responsibility to clarify that the department’s mandate is to serve justice and respect the rule of law.
It should convene a commission to investigate the work and responsibilities of government lawyers and to recommend changes that rebalance their political and legal obligations. It must look beyond individual behavior to identify leadership needs and institutional mechanisms that help Justice Department lawyers make good choices.
The urgency of that task was highlighted on May 21 when we learned some of the ways Trump’s Justice Department lawyers are now prepared to go to violate the principles that should guide their work.
At that time, as Dahlia Lithwick observed, “a judge in Chicago caught the Justice Department in a staggering web of misconduct and attempted cover-up.” The misconduct involved tampering with a grand jury to obtain indictments against members of the so-called “Broadview Six.”
On September 26, 2025, they demonstrated outside an ICE processing facility in the Chicago suburb of Broadview, during the Trump Administration’s deployment of federal forces, dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.” A news report of the incident suggests that they “surrounded an ICE vehicle that drove through the crowd, banging on its windows.”
To obtain an indictment arising from that incident, federal prosecutors in Chicago seem to have violated professional norms governing their conduct in grand jury proceedings. They allegedly made contact with grand jurors outside the jury room in an effort to persuade them of the strength of the government’s evidence.
When this came to light, they tried to deceive Judge April Perry by providing heavily redacted transcripts of grand jury deliberations. But she forced their hand, and the government turned over the full version.
After reading them, the judge expressed her shock and dismay: “I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts…. I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts.”
We should not be surprised by what happened in the Broadview Six case or the level to which the Trump Justice Department has fallen. But we should not get used to it or accept it.
That’s why Judge Perry should not let the lawyers whose misbehavior she uncovered get off easily. But even as she does that, we all should remember the price we pay when government lawyers lose their credibility with judges.
Lawyers in the Trump Administration are in a difficult situation. They are caught between their professional obligations as attorneys and public servants and the demands of a president who doesn’t care about those obligations.
President Trump made that clear when, two months into his second term, he made an unusual visit to the Justice Department and spoke to the people who worked there. It wasn’t the visit itself that was unusual.
An article in The New York Times makes that clear. The Times quotes Professor Russell Riley, who said. “’Presidential speeches at the Department of Justice headquarters are practically a routine of the modern presidency. Most often, that venue is selected for the president to show appreciation to law enforcement officers and prosecutors, and to affirm their commitment to law and order.’”
What made Trump’s visit so remarkable is that he did not go to the Justice Department to affirm any such commitments but rather to tell the lawyers who worked there that there was a new sheriff in town who expected their help in going after his political enemies. While expressing pride in “the people in this room.” He bemoaned “the lies and abuses that have occurred within these walls.”
He characterized his predecessor and the prior administration as “a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government (who) obliterated the trust and goodwill built up over generations. They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people.”
In the president’s view, “Our predecessors turned this Department of Justice into the Department of Injustice.” Trump insisted that he, not the Attorney General, was “the chief law enforcement officer in our country” and, after listing his grievances, demanded that the department achieve “complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred.”
Then, months later, in September 2025, he left nothing to the imagination. Referring to “(former FBI Director) Comey, (Senator) Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, (and) Leticia (James, New York’s Attorney General)” whom he called “guilty as hell, he urged Pam Bondi, then the Attorney General, not to “delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!”
Gloves off. Dance to the president’s tune was the new order of business for Justice Department lawyers.
As a result, many of them have left, taking with them years of experience and dedication to the rule of law and their profession. Those who are left are under enormous pressure to deliver the results the president wants.
So, they sometimes cut corners, as the Chicago United States Attorney’s Office apparently did in the Broadview Six case. The New York Times says that lawyers from that office “Stacked the deck in their own favor by removing from the panel some grand jurors who had voted against them when considering an earlier version of the charges.”
They are not alone. “As Mr. Trump,” the Times adds, “has demanded more and more charges against those he perceives as his opponents, prosecutors have felt pressure to push weak cases through grand juries. And that, in turn, has led to an erosion in faith in the Justice Department by both the grand jurors themselves and the judges considering the cases.”
The columnist Michelle Goldberg asks the right question about the Trump Justice Department:” How long can decent people continue to work for such a corrupted institution?” She worries about what its lawyers will do when it is “impossible to serve both the cause of justice and an unjust government.”
The pressures on the lawyers in the Trump Justice Department are real. Navigating those pressures is not easy. And they will not go away when the current administration ends.
Justice Department lawyers need the kind of leadership that puts service above partisanship. We’ve seen it before when former Attorney General Edward Levi helped rebuild the department in the wake of Watergate.
In addition, citizens must speak out and urge our representatives to support that kind of work. All of us, regardless of political party, should want government lawyers who follow Jackson’s maxim: “A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”
The fate of America’s constitutional republic may depend in part on the willingness and ability of Justice Department lawyers to once again act as Jackson described.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less
wallet with dollar bills, on top of an American flag
hartcreations/Getty Images
If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets
Jun 11, 2026
A recent court ruling allowing the Colorado Republican Party to decide how and whether to close its primary elections comes at a pivotal moment for the state’s election system. For nearly a decade, Colorado has had an open primary; one designed to reflect the state’s growing share of independent voters. The decision now raises a fundamental question: should taxpayers continue to fund an election that restricts large numbers of the public?
Colorado’s primary elections are not private affairs. They are administered by the state, financed by taxpayers, and conducted through public infrastructure. Ballots are printed and mailed by government offices. Election workers are trained and compensated with public funds. In every functional sense, primaries are public elections.
If the GOP moves to close its primaries to independent voters, who now make up over 50% of the state’s electorate, it would be excluding a majority of taxpayers from an election they help finance. That is not merely a policy concern, it is a question of democratic legitimacy and the proper use of public funds. Elections financed by the public should, at minimum, remain accessible to the public.
As the court’s decision reaffirms, the GOP has the constitutional right to define its membership and govern its internal affairs. The Supreme Court has repeatedly supported such associational rights in cases such as Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut and California Democratic Party v. Jones. But those decisions establish a narrower principle: the state may not interfere with a party’s internal choices. They do not hold-and no court has held-that political parties have a constitutional entitlement to taxpayer-funded administration of their nomination processes.
That distinction is essential. When a party limits participation in its primary, it is exercising a private associational right. But nothing in constitutional doctrine requires the public to subsidize that choice. Continuing to fund a closed primary would mean taxpayers are financing an electoral process from which many are deliberately excluded.
Colorado voters addressed this issue directly in 2016 with the passage of Proposition 108, establishing the state’s open primary. Its effects have been substantial: increased participation, broader campaign engagement, and candidates incentivized to appeal beyond narrow partisan bases toward the general electorate.
If the GOP chooses to conduct restricted nomination contests, there are well-established paths forward. Political parties have long conducted nominations through conventions, caucuses, and other party-run systems financed privately. In Colorado, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party continue to select candidates through assemblies and conventions without relying on taxpayer-funded primaries. Parties certainly can retain full control over nominations without state-funded election machinery.
The equity implications are difficult to ignore. The Republican Party, like any political party, is a private association. If other parties can conduct their nomination processes without public subsidy, it is reasonable to question why the Republican Party should continue to receive taxpayer funding if it chooses to exclude most taxpayers.
Elected leaders are going to have to address this imbalance, and voters should hold them accountable. The use of public funds to administer a process that excludes a substantial portion of taxpayers raises serious constitutional questions. And if left unaddressed, a legal challenge may be warranted. Although courts have traditionally imposed limits on taxpayer standing, they have recognized it in circumstances where public expenditures implicate constitutional constraints or structural concerns
The principles at stake here are straightforward: public funding should be paired with public access. Colorado has been a national leader in expanding voter participation, and its current system reflects a deliberate choice to modernize democracy in line with the composition of its electorate.
If a party chooses an open primary, it may justly rely on public administration and support. If it chooses to close that process, it has every right to do so-but then it should bear the cost itself, as any private association would.
Jeremy Gruber, JD is Senior Vice President of Open Primaries, a national organization advocating for open and inclusive primary systems and the rights of independent voters. He is the author of “Let All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States.”
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More