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

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

Labels Stick: Treat All Fairly in Justice System and Beyond

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Judges will likely be asked to rule on how changes to federal rules were made and what conclusions were drawn from that process.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

‘Administrative law’ sounds dry but likely will be key to success or failure of Trump’s plans for government reform

There’s a lot of speculation about what Donald Trump’s second term in the White House will bring. But there’s one thread that’s likely to tie together many of the changes and conflicts: the subject I teach – called “administrative law.”

That’s because administrative law spells out the procedures that an administration must use to make changes in existing policies or adopt new ones. The processes defined in those laws are also used by groups that go to court to oppose an administration’s proposals.

Keep ReadingShow less