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

Access To Justice: Ohio Justice Bus

Two people speaking about legal matters.

Canva Images

Access To Justice: Ohio Justice Bus

For many Americans, any sort of legal entanglement can send their lives into a tailspin. A landlord illegally withholding a security deposit can initiate a period of economic insecurity. An old criminal charge that qualifies for expungement may prevent someone from earning that next job. A marriage gone south can be made all the more difficult when divorce proceedings start to get squirrely. In each of these scenarios, the lives of Americans would be made vastly better if the legal profession stepped up to fulfill its obligation to everyday individuals, rather than just high-paying clients. This is a solvable problem. The solution is on display in Ohio.

The idea of “mobile justice” animated a group of Ohioans to launch the Ohio Justice Bus in 2019. They realized that too many of their community members lacked reliable access to attorneys to assist with pressing issues—from landlord/tenant disputes to family law matters. Like so many states across the country, Ohio is home to legal deserts in which the demand for legal services vastly outnumbers the supply of quality, affordable legal assistance. Rather than simply hope that more attorneys opted to settle down in smaller communities, the folks behind the Ohio Justice Bus had a much simpler idea—bring legal expertise to the people.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five Significant Changes to Immigration Policies Under Trump (so far)

President Donald Trump signs a series of executive orders at the White House on January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Five Significant Changes to Immigration Policies Under Trump (so far)

Less than a week after assuming office, President Donald Trump launched a comprehensive initiative aimed at addressing undocumented migration in the United States.

Key officials from the Trump administration, including "border czar" Tom Homan and the acting deputy attorney general, visited Chicago on Sunday to oversee the commencement of intensified immigration enforcement in the city. Specific details regarding the operation, such as the number of arrests made, were not disclosed at that time.

Keep ReadingShow less
To Counter Trump’s Election Denial, We Need Nonpartisan Reform

American at a polling booth

Getty Images//Rawpixel

To Counter Trump’s Election Denial, We Need Nonpartisan Reform

January 20 marked the 26th time in U.S. history that the ultimate position of power in the country transferred from one party to another. This is an awesome and unparalleled track record. The peaceful transfer of power could well be America’s greatest innovation, fundamental to our liberty and our prosperity.

But this time, power passed to a man who tried to sabotage the 2020 elections and then pardoned the massive assault on January 6th. On his first day in office, Trump paid homage to the denial of the rule of law, the essential element to the peaceful transfer of power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Q&A: Arizona’s legacy of “tough and cheap” sheriff enforcement explored in new book on power and democracy

Police car lights.

Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

Q&A: Arizona’s legacy of “tough and cheap” sheriff enforcement explored in new book on power and democracy

Sheriffs hold a unique place in American history and politics. As elected law enforcement officers, they arguably wield more power and have less oversight than police chiefs or other appointed officers. In historical accounts of the American West, they have been both celebrated and vilified. And while today the office has become more institutionalized, the figure of the sheriff still looms large in the story of American politics.

The constitutional sheriff movement claims that the county sheriff has “the ability to determine which laws are constitutional” — as Jessica Pishko lays out in her new book, “The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy.”

Keep ReadingShow less