Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Labels Stick: Treat All Fairly in Justice System and Beyond

Labels Stick: Treat All Fairly in Justice System and Beyond
Jan. 6, 2021: Brought to you by conflict profiteers
Brent Stirton/Getty Images

The recent four-year anniversary of the attack on the Capitol also called the insurrection, has many referring to it as an attack on democracy, an overturning of the Constitution, or a scheme by President-elect Donald Trump to take the White House. However, it’s not spoken of as a terrorist attack.

Trump has also pronounced that after his inauguration on January 20, he will begin pardons of every person sentenced due to their actions that day on January 6, 2021.


I recently read a social media meme stating: “Black Crime = Gang Violence,” “Arab Crime=Terrorism,” and “Hispanic Crime=Illegal Immigrants,” but “White Crime=Self Defense.” Apparently, this applies to those involved in the Capitol attack.

Although it was numerous different groups involved in the January 6th attack, including the Proud Boys, SkinHeads, Baked Alaska, The Nationalist Social Club, Qanon and Kekistan Flag, however, they were never referred to as a gang.

Even though they conspired to carry out criminal acts that led to people dying and being the victims of aggravated assault, none of the group leaders got sentenced to life in prison.

According to the Department of Justice, 1,572 people were charged with crimes that day, and 1,251 were convicted, including 996 who pleaded guilty. Of those receiving sentences, 645 were sentenced to various periods of incarceration, with 145 sentenced to home detention. Close to 260 people still have cases yet to be reviewed.

None were charged under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,” or RICO, “which allows authorities to punish offenders engaging in criminal activities” under directions from bosses or higher-ups.

There are individuals in U.S. prisons now who have served more than 50 years, some serving six life sentences for crimes that many would weigh lesser than what so many of us witnessed on January 6 four years ago.

As a veteran, I felt anger to see what U.S. soldiers fought for get desecrated. I felt so vulnerable as a Black man that day because if those involved in the violence that day do this to the institution that is the United States of America, they likely disregard the U.S. Constitution.

Many saw on live television a group of people telling the world they don’t care that others think they are white supremacists. They were out to show the world how supreme they were.

The recent New Year’s Day tragedy in New Orleans, orchestrated by a Black U.S. veteran and self-proclaimed member of ISIS, killed 14 and injured 13 more. The FBI calls it a terrorist event of someone acting alone with pre-meditations.

Although it was many groups involved in the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol who communicated with one another or conspired and committed a criminal act when people died, it has yet to be called gang-related. Nor has anyone faced RICO charges. And no one involved with January 6 has been called a terrorist.

How persons charged with crimes are labeled and treated in the justice system matters. Fair sentencing and deserved clemency matter. Pardons must go to those who deserve it.

Fredrick Womack oversees administrative and organizational operations as Executive Servant for Operation Good Foundation in Jackson, MS. He is a Public Voices Fellow on Transformative Justice through The OpEd Project.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less