Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch standing in front of a crowd.

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche announces the indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro, in Miami, Fla., on May 20, 2026.

US Indictment of Raúl Castro Comes Amid a Long History of American Aggression Against Cuba

The Trump administration on May 20, 2026, indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro for murder, based on the downing of two planes near the Cuban coastline in 1996 that killed four people.

As a historian of Latin America and U.S. foreign policy, I believe the indictment may be the prelude to direct U.S. military action against Cuba.

Keep ReadingShow less