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

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
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