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 U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

Rubén Rocha Moya, governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, left, with then-President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, center, and then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2024. The U.S. has charged Rocha with drug corruption, but Sheinbaum has refused to arrest him.

Rashide Frias/AFP via Getty Images

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

After months of U.S.-Mexico tensions sparked by the Trump administration’s threats to strike unilaterally at Mexican drug traffickers, the two governments are heading for a potentially more serious confrontation over President Claudia Sheinbaum’s refusal to arrest Mexican officials charged in the United States with drug corruption.

U.S. Justice Department officials have yet to present a full picture of their evidence against 10 current and former Mexican officials, whose indictments were announced on April 29. They include the governor of Sinaloa state, Rubén Rocha Moya, an ally of the president and a prominent figure in her leftist political party.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
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