Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Supreme Court and the rule of law

Supreme Court
Wikimedia

Rikleen is executive director ofLawyers Defending American Democracy and the editor of “Her Honor – Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges.”

Events are now occurring at a breathtaking pace that leaves us in a perpetual cycle of breaking news and ramped-up emotions. Yet, within this maelstrom, our north star must be the rule of law — and protecting it when endangered.

The rule of law is endangered when a presidential candidate is nearly assassinated at his own rally by a 20-year-old armed with a semi-automatic rifle, whose accuracy killed a father shielding his family. It is further endangered by those who use this tragedy for political advantage, casting blame in the absence of a known motive as to why an unstable young man with access to a gun wreaked havoc on the country.

Each time the rule of law is weakened, our country becomes further at risk.


The very foundation of the rule of law rests on the public’s trust and confidence in our justice system. In the past two weeks, that confidence and trust has been shaken to its core. After another term featuring a series of sweeping decisions demonstrating broad judicial overreach, the Supreme Court has now demonstrated that the public can no longer place its trust and confidence in this court’s decisions.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In its most recent departure from the norms and principles that have guided the court historically, the radical Roberts majority decided that a president is essentially immune from prosecution. In a decision that went much further than it needed to go, but not far enough to provide any guidance for the lower courts, the majority abandoned a fundamental principle that courts must decide the facts that are before it, not the facts that judges and justices want.

Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts crafted a decision to match the majority’s ideology, which is extreme.

It is a misnomer to refer to the Roberts majority as conservative, as commentators often do. This country has lived through courts that expressed both traditionally liberal and traditionally conservative ideologies for decades. Rather, the Roberts majority represents an extreme viewpoint that violates centuries of constitutional principles in its decisions.

The court’s decisions have also done a disservice to the vast majority of lower federal court judges who daily seek to uphold the ideals of our justice system in a reasoned framework, based on precedent and the facts before them.

And that leads to the decision by one lower court judge who has embraced the openings that the Supreme Court created to issue rulings — or otherwise fail to do so – when it suited an agenda. After slow-walking the classified documents criminal case against former President Donald Trump for more than a year, Judge Aileen Cannon has now dismissed it entirely.

In doing so, Cannon has finally succeeded in what has seemed to have been her goal from the outset: Delay the case and deny any effort to seek justice. Of particular significance in her written ruling, Cannon cites several times Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the presidential immunity case in which he mused that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated the law — an invitation for future litigation that even the radical majority did not include in its decision.

In effect, Thomas set forth a dispiriting call to which Cannon eagerly responded, leaving the rule of law in tatters.

Cannon has now earned her reputation as a radical who, like the Roberts majority, has continually demonstrated adherence to an ideological agenda that is at odds with principles of the rule of law.

None of us, however, can take time for lamenting. We cannot be a bystander to the dismantling of the rule of law and our democratic institutions.

Instead, we must ensure that our justice system survives these difficult times. There are organizations that need your talents, community forums that need your ideas, and myriad ways to serve as a convener and participant in civil discourse that can help reverse the current threats.

We have no other choice but to join together and save the rule of law. The risk is too real for us to think someone else will do the job.

Read More

Close up of a judge hammering a gavel
Chris Collins/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Impeaching Judges Who Rule Against Trump

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Federal judges have ruled against Trump on issues including immigrant deportations, transgender healthcare information, and Elon Musk’s DOGE. Should they be impeached?

Keep ReadingShow less
New Law Will Likely Harm Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence

A person's speech bubble being popped.

Getty Images, Malte Mueller

New Law Will Likely Harm Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence

A tragic death sparked national attention, turning into a call to strengthen immigration enforcement to enhance public safety. In response, the Laken Riley Act emerged as a significant piece of legislation in the ongoing debate over immigration policy in the United States. It purports to provide protection from crime but, in fact, could have an especially negative impact on survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

The new law allows for the detention of individuals who lack legal status, even if they have only been arrested or charged with minor offenses like theft or burglary. Notably, conviction is not required. This blatantly undermines the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty," eroding due process protections that keep innocent people from being incarcerated, separated from children and family, losing employment, and suffering mental and physical health consequences.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Wants To ‘Defund’ Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court Will Hear a Case Aimed at That.

Medicaid is the most common source of insurance for patients who seek health care at Planned Parenthood clinics, which provide services such as testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screenings and birth control services.

AARON M. SPRECHER/AP IMAGES

Trump Wants To ‘Defund’ Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court Will Hear a Case Aimed at That.

In its first abortion case since President Donald Trump’s reelection, the Supreme Court will hear arguments this month about whether states can bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds — which could further the administration’s goal of “defunding” the nation’s largest family planning provider.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic concerns an order from South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, who in 2018 said any clinic that provided abortions could not participate in the state’s Medicaid program. Lower courts have blocked McMaster’s order from taking effect. But if implemented, the state policy could seriously undercut South Carolinians’ access to reproductive health care and create a template for other states to emulate.

Keep ReadingShow less
It’s time to defend the guardrails of democracy

A gavel.

Getty Images, Alexander Sikov

It’s time to defend the guardrails of democracy

Lawyers know that President Trump’s executive orders targeting individual law firms, and now, theentire legal profession, are illegal and unconstitutional. The situation puts a choice to every lawyer and every law firm. Do you fight – speak out and act out against this lawless behavior? Or do you accommodate it, keep your head down, and wait for the storm to pass?

The answer is to fight. Here’s why – and here’s what lawyers should do.

Keep ReadingShow less