Celebrating the Fourth of July this year may feel a bit strange to some. The day represents our moment of final rupture and rebellion from a king; our current president proudly (and only half-jokingly) doffs monarchical regalia and titles online. And the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence — freedom and liberty, civil rights and democracy, self-determination and equality — are all under assault at this moment from the government itself. These fundamental principles are enshrined and protected in the rule of law: an adversarial system designed to bring out the truth, with due process afforded to all, and the two other branches of the federal government — the legislature and the executive — both must respect and follow the rulings of the independent judiciary. It’s a carefully honed process, going back to the English common law and traditions that the colonists brought with them over the Atlantic; ultimately sharpened, refined, and made uniquely American through centuries of practice. The notions of apolitical impartiality have been embedded within the prosecutorial power of the federal government itself. Thus, the rule of law is a sacred jewel at the heart of our constitutional democracy. But the Trump Administration and its allies don’t view it that way; they see the law as a tool they can use to enact their ideological vision and grab power for themselves.
As we approach this nation’s 249th birthday — and coming off a series of momentous legal developments, capped by the end of this year’s Supreme Court term — we at the Democracy Index are doing a special Independence Week edition, stepping back to take the temperature of the rule of law, which is an important bellwether for the health of our democracy writ large.
There are many other important stories that we have been tracking, which are captured in greater detail in our interactive visualization split into the six categories of democratic health. Click this link to visit the page.
Last week ended with the legal fireworks lawyers wait for every year: the bundle of Supreme Court decisions released at the end of June before the justices take their summer break. A total of nine opinions were released on Thursday and Friday, and while all the rulings were significant, there were four particularly notable decisions that will have significant nationwide repercussions and tell us where the court (and therefore the country) is headed.
Perhaps the most important of these was the Roberts Court’s limitations on universal injunctions. The federal courts, and these types of injunctions specifically — in which judges have halted the implementation of Trump’s egregious Executive Orders across the nation, including his unconstitutional attempt to curtail birthright citizenship — have been one of the most important and effective protections against the chaotic lawlessness of Trump’s actions. Injunctions allow the status quo that existed before a contested action takes effect to stay in place, so that the courts have the opportunity to adjudicate its lawfulness without the impacted individuals having their lives irrevocably damaged. Indeed, in the patriotic spirit of our national anthem, the ramparts of our current era include the litigation brought by Democracy Defenders Fund and many others, and, crucially, the courts holding the line.
Justice Barrett’s decision singes that shield, holding that federal district court judges cannot order injunctions that provide relief beyond what is necessary to protect the specific plaintiffs in a case. She characterizes any attempt to do that as the creation of an “imperial” judiciary. The opinion — which came with a number of concurrences from other members of the 6-3 majority — was narrow, and leaves a pathway for litigants to seek broad relief. And so within hours of the Court’s ruling, DDF and others were back in court fighting the birthright citizenship executive order as a class action — and if the court grants an injunction, it would cover the entire class of plaintiffs. But caution is necessary here because class actions and other forms of relief aren’t the nimble tool that nationwide injunctions are. Justice Barrett’s decision deprives those who would prevent this president from taking clearly unconstitutional action, like rewriting the 14th Amendment with his own Sharpie pen, of one of their most effective ways of doing so.
We will wait and see whether the Supreme Court ultimately authorizes the use of alternative methods of preserving the status quo in the face of the array of Constitution-busting actions attempted by this president. But the decision must also be viewed in a broader context, at a moment when the Executive Branch is abusing its powers through a blitzkrieg. The Roberts Court not only strengthens the president’s ability to conduct this campaign by neutering a crucial tool to check him. It is also taking power away from the district courts to arrogate more of it for themselves. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence makes this explicit, as he notes that all the important decisions about these types of injunctions will ultimately be decided by the Supremes.
There were three other significant decisions worth unpacking:
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification to access online sexual content. The law was originally blocked by a federal court in Texas that held it violated the First Amendment and would allow the federal government “to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives.”
In another 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that parents with religious objections to LGBTQ+ themes (and therefore anyone who identifies as such) can withdraw their children from classes when books with LGBTQ+ topics are in the curriculum.
In yet another 6-3 ruling, the conservative majority ruled that Planned Parenthood does not have standing to sue the state of South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from state Medicaid coverage because of its abortion care. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the ruling is “likely to result in tangible harm to real people” and that “it will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’”
You’ll notice that every notable decision here had a 6-3 split — with the Republican-appointed justices all voting together, and the Democratic appointees doing the same. Despite some talk about ideological differences within the conservative supermajority (which do to a certain extent exist) at the end of the day in the biggest cases, this supermajority sticks together and repeatedly delivers wins for Trump and his project, while refraining from giving them everything they want.
The outlook of the Roberts Court is part of a years-long trajectory. But the attacks on the legal system happening inside the Justice Department itself are a shock-and-awe strike by the Trump Administration against the veteran stewards of the DOJ. We got a fascinating and terrifying inside glimpse at that story last week, when Erez Reuveni, a well-regarded career prosecutor released a 27-page whistleblower complaint detailing the circumstances around the DOJ’s handling of the Alien Enemies Act and Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportations, and his firing. The letter details an unscrupulous DOJ, openly contemplating defying court orders and skirting the edges to defy judges’ direct instructions. That effort was led by Emil Bove, who is portrayed as doing Trump’s bidding. One of the most shocking claims in the letter is that “Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’ and ignore any such court order,” that may block the flights deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act. Of course, Bove is now nominated to be a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; where, if confirmed, he will bring his particular odious brand of obsequious cravenness to the federal bench. (Bove denied the allegations.)
Reuveni is not the only lawyer that has been fired by the Trump Administration. On Friday, the Justice Department fired three prosecutors involved in the January 6th Capitol riot criminal cases — seemingly part of Trump’s ongoing effort in his twisted effort to recast Jan. 6 rioters as heroes and the prosecutors (who were acting to protect the country) as villains.
Among many other things, the Declaration of Independence is a stirring example of the power of words. That relatively short document — just about the length of the essay you are reading right now — created America, and our ongoing attempts to reach the ideals it set forth has been the driving motivator of American life for two and a half centuries. Trump also understands this power; it’s why he calls convicted Jan. 6 criminals “hostages.” As he threatens the legal fabric that has protected this nation, we must not lose sight of what matters. The Declaration tells us that to “secure” the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, governments are created that derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” At the end of the day, power does not ultimately rest with a president or a court, let alone a king. The fate of this country is still in our hands, as the Framers intended. It’s up to us to make sure it stays that way.
We wish you a happy and meaningful Independence Day.
Until next week,
The Democracy Index team
Can someone please explain to me how to read this graphic? There’s no explanation on the website - is mostly white good…..?
As a quick piece of info I think this is not very successful.
While the concept that the fate of the country rests in our hands, it must be noted that the mechanisms to exercise that control have been severely damaged, likely rendering them inadequate and ineffective in undertaking this task. I find the graphic hard to interpret, but just based on the status of the various categories, think your characterization of where the country is, is much too optimistic.