Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A Time to Choose Sides

Opinion

A Time to Choose Sides

A gavel and a scale of justice.

Getty Images, Witoon Pongsit

Donald Trump posted a picture of himself on social media next to a quote: “He who saves his Country violates no Law” [sic]. Attributed to Napoleon, the quote means that, with the right intentions, nothing should constrain executive power. It echoes statements by Vice President Vance and others that the administration need not abide by court orders blocking their illegal and unconstitutional actions.

These statements are nothing less than a complete rejection of the American system of government. As Americans see this rejection for what it is, they aren’t going to like it. A poll, released last week from Marquette University Law School, found that 83% of those surveyed—including 77% of Republicans—believe that the President must abide by court orders. It’s why it is critically important for all Americans to see these comments in this light, and act accordingly. Many people are doing it already. Here’s what everyone needs to understand.


First, Americans revere the Constitution—more than 85% have a favorable view of it, according to a 2024 poll by the Cato Institute. The principles underlying the Constitution are an inherent aspect of what it means to be an American, and the norms and traditions that flow from them—including the rule of law—are part of what has made America into the world’s most powerful nation and its most influential culture.

Second, lawmakers and government officials face important dilemmas, and they need support and encouragement to uphold their oaths to protect the Constitution. Last week, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, resigned, rather than follow a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi to illegally and unethically dismiss charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. In a detailed letter, Sassoon laid out her rationale for refusing this order. Her deputy, Hagan Scotten, resigned as well, along with several other officials. These are principled and honorable people. Their actions should be held in the highest regard. Lawyers and legal organizations must step forward to represent these brave officials in the retaliatory investigations that have been threatened to ensue from their adherence to ethical principles.

Third, the press must recognize how the public feels about the Constitution and the rule of law. Americans know that it is not too much to expect the government to follow the law and the Constitution. Unfortunately, too much news reporting frames issues in terms of political debates, where there are two legitimate sides. However, there are not two sides in a debate in which one side calls for the destruction of the American system of government.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is a quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson. Nearly 60% of Americans agree with its sentiments. Unlike the supposed Napoleon quote, this one is about the liberty of the people, not the untrammeled power of a despot. And this is really the issue. Like an immune system, Americans will reject this foreign view of our system of government. Each of us must understand the stakes of this fight—and decide which side we are on.


Evan Falchuk is the chair of the executive committee of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, a non-partisan organization galvanizing lawyers to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution.

Read More

USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep ReadingShow less
An abstract grid wall of shipping containers, unevenly arranged with some jutting out, all decorated in the colors and patterns of the USA flag. A prominent percentage sign overlays the grid.

The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, probing executive authority, rising consumer costs, manufacturing strain, and the future of U.S. trade governance.

Getty Images, J Studios

Tariffs on Trial: The Supreme Court’s Hidden Battle for Balance

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court convened what may be one of the most important trade cases of this generation. Justices across the ideological spectrum carefully probed whether a president may deploy sweeping import duties under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The outcome will resonate well beyond tariffs. It strikes at the heart of how America governs its commerce, regulates its markets, and wields power abroad.

President Trump’s argument rests on a dramatic claim: that persisting trade deficits, surging imports, and what he called a national security crisis tied to opioids and global supply chains justify tariffs of 10% to 50% on nearly all goods from most of the world. The statute invoked was intended for unusual and extraordinary threats—often adversarial regimes, economic warfare, or sanctions—not for broad-based economic measures against friend and foe alike. The justices registered deep doubts.

Keep ReadingShow less