Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

From Survivor To Advocate: A Latina Lawyer’s Call for Legal Reform

Opinion

Lady Justice
On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.
the_burtons/Getty Images

The American legal system prides itself on upholding justice. But behind its polished façade lies an uncomfortable truth: the law often protects abusers—particularly when they hold power within the system itself.

From Jeffrey Epstein’s elite legal defense to the many unresolved allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump, we see how wealth and status create insulation from accountability. But what’s less visible is how this dynamic plays out within the legal profession, where lawyers, judges, and law professors abuse their power. The institutions tasked with accountability often remain silent.


I know this reality intimately.

As a public interest lawyer and survivor of domestic violence, I navigated a harrowing custody battle, secured a restraining order, and ultimately won the right to relocate with my child. But what should have been a moment of safety was overshadowed by professional betrayal. My abuser, a fellow attorney and adjunct law professor, faced no professional consequences. Even while under a court-ordered restraining order, he continued teaching law students—his record unblemished, his reputation protected. Law school administrators were informed. I was never contacted, supported, or believed.

This isn’t a personal grievance. It’s a systemic failure.

In a field where reputation often outweighs integrity, survivors are routinely discouraged from speaking out. When the accused are high-status men in legal academia or practice, institutions close ranks to preserve their image. Survivors—especially women, people of color, and those in early career stages—pay the price: lost income, mental health crises, professional isolation, and, in many cases, forced exit from the profession.

These failures aren’t just workplace issues—they’re failures of civic infrastructure. When government agencies, courts, and bar associations ignore or minimize abuse, they undermine the very democratic principles they exist to uphold: equal protection under the law, access to justice, and institutional transparency. A democracy that fails to protect its most vulnerable participants—particularly within the legal system—loses legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

We are not talking about rare cases. Nearly 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men experience physical intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Studies show that survivors lose approximately 8 million days of paid work each year due to abuse. When the abuser is a legal professional, the imbalance of power is intensified. They know how to weaponize the law to harass, delay, and drain their victims—using legal filings not for justice, but for punishment.

And the profession lets them.

Law schools rarely have trauma-informed procedures for student or faculty survivors. Bar associations focus on attorney discipline for financial misconduct, not abuse. Employers don’t know how to handle disclosures—so they ignore them. Meanwhile, abusers continue teaching, practicing, and climbing ranks, aided by silence and institutional complicity.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

If the legal profession is to retain any moral authority, it must reform from within. That starts by acknowledging that domestic violence isn’t just a social issue—it’s a workplace issue, a legal ethics issue, and a democratic integrity issue. Civic institutions—especially those charged with interpreting and enforcing laws—must model the accountability they demand from others.

We need:

  • Trauma-informed training for all legal professionals—including judges, professors, and bar association staff.
  • Survivor support systems within law schools, firms, and courts.
  • Bar disciplinary reform to ensure violence, harassment, and coercive control are treated as ethical violations.
  • Bans on non-disclosure agreements and gag orders in cases involving abuse.
  • Transparency around institutional handling of abuse allegations, especially when the accused hold teaching or leadership roles.

For Latinas and other women of color, these institutional failures often carry additional burdens. We are more likely to be disbelieved, stereotyped as “emotional” or “unprofessional,” and punished for speaking out. Cultural stigmas, immigration concerns, and economic disparities compound the risks. In my own case, navigating these dynamics as a Latina in a predominantly white legal institution only deepened my isolation. Addressing abuse in the legal system must include an intersectional lens—because democracy cannot thrive if entire communities are excluded from its protections.

As a pro bono attorney, I’ve also had the honor of serving dozens of Latinas navigating the aftermath of abuse. The sheer number of survivors and the invisible wounds they carried enraged me, and still do. Domestic violence affects people across all backgrounds, but I witnessed firsthand that immigrant women face unique and compounded barriers—language, isolation, financial dependence, and fear of deportation. Nearly half of Latina immigrants may never seek help, fearing indiscriminate detention. Abusers exploit immigration status as a weapon of control, creating a brutal dynamic that demands a legal system responsive to their lived realities. For these women, obtaining a restraining order was not just a legal step—it was an act of courage and a means of survival. I walked many through the process in Spanish, acting as both lawyer and translator, bridging the cultural and linguistic divide in a system that too often seemed stacked against them.

This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of public trust. When we fail to hold legal professionals accountable for abuse, we erode faith in the very system meant to protect the vulnerable. Survivors—inside and outside the courtroom—deserve better.

My memoir, Survivor at Law, shares this lived experience and the broader patterns of complicity I’ve witnessed. But one voice isn’t enough. We need a profession-wide reckoning.

A healthy democracy depends on trust in its institutions. And justice must begin at home. For the legal field, that means inside our own institutions.

Dovie King is a public interest attorney, author of Survivor at Law, and lifelong advocate for survivor justice. Born in San Diego to immigrants from Mexico and Costa Rica, she brings a nuanced understanding of the legal and cultural barriers faced by marginalized communities. A graduate of Brown University and the Northeastern University School of Law, she has advised aspiring public service lawyers at Harvard Law School and worked to dismantle systemic silence surrounding abuse—particularly within legal institutions, the media, and political structures.



Read More

​Thomas Albus.

Thomas Albus speaks at a press conference in 2019.

Hillary Levin/Post Dispatch/Polaris

What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia

The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.

Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
A computer mouse's digital clicker hovering above the image of a gavel.

Administrative subpoenas aren’t new—but in a data-driven world, they can expose identity and chill speech. A deep dive into history, Supreme Court doctrine, and modern risks.

Getty Images, J Studios

Administrative Subpoenas: Old Tool, New Risks

The tool people think is new (and isn’t)

Most people assume administrative subpoenas are a relatively new federal instrument—something that took off after 9/11 or emerged as a modern bureaucratic hack. The truth is they’re rooted in the late nineteenth-century rise of federal regulation, when Congress created agencies tasked with investigating industries shaping national life.

In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroads and investigate abuses. To give the Commission investigatory teeth, Congress authorized it to demand the books, papers, and testimony needed to examine discriminatory practices, alleged safety violations, and other infractions. This early template still defines the tool: agencies can compel information without a judge’s signature upfront. Which is backed, if necessary, by court enforcement if the recipient refuses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less