Articles for category: US Democracy Under Threat

The Demise of Congress

Last week, Congress passed a bill permitting deep cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting programs – just days after enacting what Donald Trump hailed as the “Big Beautiful Bill,” widely seen as a legislative disaster. Congress is increasingly surrendering its constitutional power of the purse and, with it, its institutional identity in relation to the presidency. Its collapse in favor of pure partisanship signals the breakdown of the system of checks and balances at the heart of the U.S. Constitution.

Stopping the Davids, Shielding the Goliaths

In Barbara v. Trump, an individual federal district court judge stopped the Administration’s birthright citizenship executive order nationwide. Just when the Supreme Court said this was not allowed in Trump v. CASA, a New Hampshire judge ordered universal relief, this time through a class action. There is a big difference between a nationwide injunction that benefits non-parties and a class action that benefits class members. But what they have in common is that they both empower the “little guy” to enforce the rule of law. The Supreme Court has eliminated the former and is now trying to kneecap the latter.

Laboratories of Authoritarianism

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause to grant conservative religious parents a constitutional right to remove their children from any classroom where a teacher includes LGBTQAI+ people in the curriculum. In effect, the Court has allowed public schools to discourage mutual tolerance, parents to opt out of Equal Protection, and fringe legal strategists to continue to use children’s constitutional rights as a test case for authoritarianism. In doing so, the erosion of children’s rights becomes the foundation upon which other rights are eroded.

Silencing Children’s Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor on June 27, 2025. In doing so, it dramatically expanded parental rights over students and education without concern for the rights of children or consideration of pedagogy and curriculum. Instead of addressing the plurality of views around sexual orientation and gender, the Court indirectly, but unsubtly, installs a traditional values framework that imposes norms of heterosexuality, religious fundamentalism and parental micromanagement of curriculum.

Judicial Acquiescence to Presidential Immigration

Mahmoud Khalil, Kilmar Ábrego García, and Rumeysa Ozturk are just a few of the people against whom the second Trump Administration has openly engaged in alarming forms of immigration enforcement. There is an underappreciated way in which the Supreme Court has defanged the judiciary’s systemic ability to confront the executive branch’s illegal immigration behavior: It has failed to draw on U.S. administrative law. In doing so, it has diminished a vital structural judicial check on presidential power – one that lower courts, and even a future Supreme Court, may find increasingly difficult to deploy.

The Liberal Litigation Trap

The progressive legal movement faces a harsh reality: its reliance on federal courts has become a strategic liability in an era of conservative judicial dominance. Rather than continue on its current path or abandon impact litigation entirely, liberal cause lawyers should embrace “resistance through restraint” – tactically starving conservative appellate courts of cases while redirecting their energy toward democratic organizing, state-level advocacy, and defensive litigation.

Trump’s Final Frontier?

Trump nominated Emil Bove III, a former attorney of his, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Bove nomination signals a turn away from the Federalist Society, the signature institution of the conservative legal movement. With it, the radical forces of the New Right movement are now making inroads into the inherently conservative judiciary. This is a development that could be a key step in consolidating Trump's power.

The Constitution’s Midnight

Resolving some legal issues requires drawing a line through a gray area. Others can be resolved without having to draw a line, in recognition of an old insight: that there is a dawn and a dusk does not mean there is no noon or no midnight. Whether the President had power under the Constitution to attack Iran without congressional approval is an issue that falls in the latter category, within the Constitution’s midnight: wherever a line might be drawn in harder cases, this is not one of them.