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

After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

A small Lady Justice statue.

Getty Images, MarianVejcik

After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

Louisiana District Attorneys Association (LDAA), a special interest lobbying group, stands in the way of justice in Louisiana. On May 21, the LDAA successfully blocked a legislative pathway for hundreds of people to receive fair constitutional trials. Louisiana is the only state in the United States of America where people are serving sentences in prison, some for life, where a jury did not agree on whether they were guilty.

For nearly 1,000 people in Louisiana prisons, a jury could have found them guilty but instead returned a verdict that would be called a “hung jury” if the case had been tried in Alabama, Texas, New York, California, Mississippi, and other states.

Keep ReadingShow less
Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard

Shadow of a boy

Getty Images/mrs

Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard

Justice is not swift for anyone, and even less so for children. In Mexico, as in many other countries, children who are victims of crime must endure not only the pain of what they have lived through, but also the institutional delays that, instead of protecting them, expose them to new forms of harm. If we truly acted with the urgency that child protection demands, why doesn’t the justice system respond with the same urgency?

Since January, a seven-year-old girl in Mexico, a survivor of sexual violence at her school, has been waiting for a federal judge to resolve an amparo, a constitutional appeal she filed requesting the right to participate in the criminal case against her aggressor in a protected and adapted manner. According to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico’s highest court), amparos must be used as urgent remedies when fundamental rights are at imminent risk. And yet, four months have passed with no resolution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Judge gavel and book on the laptop

Getty Images/Stock

Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Background

In November 2024, Elon Musk posted on social media, “There should be no need for [Freedom of Information Act] requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.” His statement reignited discussions on the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a federal law enacted in 1966 that requires federal executive branch agencies to disclose information in specific ways. Since its original passage in 1966, FOIA has been updated three times to tighten agency compliance, account for digital records, and allow citizens to request records online. Under FOIA, government agencies must disclose information by:

FOIA includes nine exemptions to protect against harms that might result from divulging certain records; these exemptions include cases like invasion of personal privacy, information related to national security, and information that would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Amid Constitutional Debate

Members of CASA advocacy group gather outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. toask justices to protect birthright citizenship on May 15, 2025.

Angeles Ponpa/Medill NewsService

Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Amid Constitutional Debate

WASHINGTON- The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments over a Trump administration order that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to undocumented immigrant parents and others in the country temporarily. The order challenged more than a Century of legal precedent.

The case centers on Executive Order 14160, signed in January by President Donald Trump, which asserts that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not apply to children born to noncitizens without permanent legal status. Lower courts swiftly blocked the policy, prompting a high-stakes showdown over both the scope of the amendment and the president's power to unilaterally reinterpret it.

Keep ReadingShow less