ABA condemns remarks questioning legitimacy of courts and judicial review; American Bar Association (ABA), February 11, 2025

American Bar Association (ABA); ABA condemns remarks questioning legitimacy of courts and judicial review

"Last week, the administration lost a pretrial motion in a federal district court, which halted government efforts to gain access to Department of Treasury records including private records of many, if not all, U.S. citizens.  

It is certainly not the first time an administration has not prevailed in a pretrial motion in one of thousands of cases it files or defends each year. There is no final judgment in this case and, in any event, the government can appeal in a manner it has done countless times over the years. The right to appeal is there for any party dissatisfied with a court’s decision. It is also the right of every American and the government to criticize a decision made by the courts.   

What is never acceptable is what was said by representatives of this administration, including the misleading assertion that judges cannot control the executive’s legitimate power and calls for impeachment of a judge who did not rule in the administration’s favor. It is also not acceptable to attack the judge making the ruling or try to interfere with the independence of the court.   

These statements attack the legitimacy of judicial oversight just because a court’s ruling is not what the administration wants in a particular case. It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy that the courts are the protectors of the citizenry from government overreach. All lawyers know that judges have the authority to determine whether the administration’s actions are lawful and a legitimate exercise of executive branch authority. It is one of the oldest and most revered precedent in United States legal history — Marbury v. Madison. This is a key principle that is taught in the first year of law school.  

These bold assertions, designed to intimidate judges by threatening removal if they do not rule the government's way, cross the line. They create a risk to the physical security of judges and have no place in our society. There have also been suggestions that the executive branch should consider disobeying court orders. These statements threaten the very foundation of our constitutional system.   

The ABA calls for every lawyer and legal organization to speak with one voice and to condemn the efforts of any administration that suggests its actions are beyond the reach of judicial review. We also call for condemnation and rejection of calls for the impeachment of a judge who did not rule in a certain way.   

This is not the first time we have called out criticism and efforts to demonize the courts. The ABA spoke last fall during the previous administration and called out comments from both sides.  

We recognize the potential risk to our profession, the ABA and our members, by speaking. But to stay silent is to suggest that these statements are acceptable or the new norm. They are not. And we will not be silent in the face of such words that are contrary to our constitutional system. They pose a clear and present challenge to our democracy and the separation of powers among the three independent branches. We will stand for the rule of law today as we have for nearly 150 years.  

The ABA is one of the largest voluntary associations of lawyers in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law. View our privacy statement online."

The ABA supports the rule of law; American Bar Association (ABA), February 10, 2025

 American Bar Association (ABA) ; The ABA supports the rule of law

"It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.  

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law. 

The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.

Just last week, in rejecting citizenship challenges, the U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said that the rule of law is, according to this administration, something to navigate around or simply ignore. “Nevertheless,” he said, “in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.” He is correct. The rule of law is a bright beacon for our country.

In the last 21 days, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed alleging that the administration’s actions violate the rule of law and are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. The list grows longer every day. 

These actions have forced affected parties to seek relief in the courts, which stand as a bulwark against these violations. We support our courts who are treating these cases with the urgency they require. Americans know there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed. What is being done is not the right way to pursue the change that is sought in our system of government.   

These actions do not make America stronger. They make us weaker. Many Americans are rightly concerned about how leaders who are elected, confirmed or appointed are proceeding to make changes. The goals of eliminating departments and entire functions do not justify the means when the means are not in accordance with the law. Americans expect better. Even among those who want change, no one wants their neighbor or their family to be treated this way. Yet that is exactly what is happening.   

These actions have real-world consequences. Recently hired employees fear they will lose their jobs because of some matter they were assigned to in the Justice Department or some training they attended in their agency. USAID employees assigned to build programs that benefit foreign countries are being doxed, harassed with name-calling and receiving conflicting information about their employment status. These stories should concern all Americans because they are our family members, neighbors and friends. No American can be proud of a government that carries out change in this way. Neither can these actions be rationalized by discussion of past grievances or appeals to efficiency. Everything can be more efficient, but adherence to the rule of law is paramount. We must be cognizant of the harm being done by these methods. 

Moreover, refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government. This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop.

There is much that Americans disagree on, but all of us expect our government to follow the rule of law, protect due process and treat individuals in a way that we would treat others in our homes and workplaces. The ABA does not oppose any administration. Instead, we remain steadfast in our support for the rule of law.  

We call upon our elected representatives to stand with us and to insist upon adherence to the rule of law and the legal processes and procedures that ensure orderly change. The administration cannot choose which law it will follow or ignore. These are not partisan or political issues. These are rule of law and process issues. We cannot afford to remain silent. We must stand up for the values we hold dear. The ABA will do its part and act to protect the rule of law.

We urge every attorney to join us and insist that our government, a government of the people, follow the law. It is part of the oath we took when we became lawyers. Whatever your political party or your views, change must be made in the right way. Americans expect no less.

– William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association"

Pay Attention to the FBI; The Atlantic, February 6, 2025

 Hanna Rosin, The Atlantic; Pay Attention to the FBI

"In this episode of Radio Atlantic, we discuss where Trump and Musk seem to be headed and the obstacles they are likely to encounter in the future. What happens when Trump starts to face challenges from courts? What happens when Musk goes after programs that Americans depend on, particularly those who voted for Trump? What new political alliances might emerge from the wreckage? We talk with staff writer Jonathan Chait, who covers politics. And we also talk with Shane Harris, who covers national security, about Trump’s campaign to purge the FBI of agents who worked on cases related to the insurrection at the Capitol.

“I think that will send a clear message to FBI personnel that there are whole categories of people and therefore potential criminal activity that they should not touch, because it gets into the president, his influence, his circle of friends,” Harris says. “I think that is just a potentially ruinous development for the rule of law in the United States.”"

Trump 2.0: The most damaging two weeks in history; The Washington Post, February 4, 2025

 Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Trump 2.0: The most damaging two weeks in history

"No president in history has caused more damage to the nation more quickly. As we enter Week 3 of President Donald Trump’s second term, the chaos and disruption of his first look quaint by comparison. The country survived Trump 1. Now, it faces a real threat that the harm he inflicts during his second term will be irreparable. The United States’ standing in the world, its ability to keep the country safe, the federal government’s fundamental capacity to operate effectively — all of these will take years to repair, if that can be achieved at all.

This column will concentrate on the third piece of that trifecta: efforts to undermine the basic functioning of government...

None of this is normal. Little of it is legal. All of it is misguided, and that’s a mild term. The damage to the federal workforce is incalculable. Years of expertise down the drain. The ability to recruit talented employees, same. Why would anyone join an operation that treats its workers this way?

The reason to worry about this is not because of unfairness to federal employees, although there is that — it’s because of the debilitating, even dangerous, impact on government operations. Disruption is one thing in Silicon Valley, where the stakes are merely profit and loss. It is quite another when you are talking about a government charged with ensuring the safety of its citizens.

“What is happening right now,” Stier said, “is the destruction of the institution itself.”

And if you think that can be repaired four years from now, ask yourself: If Trump is successful in purging the government of perceived opponents and putting loyalists in their place, would a new Democratic administration politely play by old-school rules — or would it be justified in engaging in a tit-for-tat response?

The damage has already begun, and it will be difficult to reverse."

Elon Musk’s Power Grab Is Lawless, Dangerous, and—Yes—a Coup; Slate, February 4, 2025

DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN, Slate;  Elon Musk’s Power Grab Is Lawless, Dangerous, and—Yes—a Coup

"The federal government is currently under relentless and unlawful assault by a man no one elected to lead it. With Donald Trump’s blessing and enabling, Elon Musk and his confederates have laid siege to the executive branch in an onslaught whose appalling and far-reaching consequences have barely begun to be reported, much less understood. Musk’s team is tearing through federal agencies at a shocking clip, gaining access to classified material, private personal information, and payment systems that distribute trillions of dollars every year, all in alleged breach of the law. The richest person in the world, who works for no recognizable government entity and answers to nobody, apparently believes he has unilateral authority to withhold duly appropriated funds, violate basic security protocols protecting state secrets, and abolish a global agency in direct contravention of Congress’ explicit command. He is reportedly leading a purge of the federal workforce, persecuting life-saving charities, and pushing outprincipled civil servants who stand in the way of his rampage."

Timothy Snyder; The Logic of Destruction: And how to resist it, February 2, 2025

 TIMOTHY SNYDER; The Logic of Destruction: And how to resist it

"What is a country? The way its people govern themselves. America exists because its people elect those who make and execute laws. The assumption of a democracy is that individuals have dignity and rights that they realize and protect by acting together.

The people who now dominate the executive branch of the government deny all of this, and are acting, quite deliberately, to destroy the nation. For them, only a few people, the very wealthy with a certain worldview, have rights, and the first among these is to dominate. 

For them, there is no such thing as an America, or Americans, or democracy, or citizens, and they act accordingly. Now that the oligarchs and their clients are inside the federal government, they are moving, illegally and unconstitutionally, to take over its institutions.

The parts of the government that work to implement laws have been maligned for decades. Americans have been told that the people who provide them with services are conspirators within a “deep state.” We have been instructed that the billionaires are the heroes.

All of this work was preparatory to the coup that is going on now. The federal government has immense capacity and control over trillions of dollars. That power was a cocreation of the American people. It belongs to them. The oligarchs around Trump are working now to take it for themselves.

Theirs is a logic of destruction. It is very hard to create a large, legitimate, functioning government. The oligarchs have no plan to govern. They will take what they can, and disable the rest. The destruction is the point. They don’t want to control the existing order. They want disorder in which their relative power will grow...

The best people in American federal law enforcement, national security, and national intelligence are being fired. The reasons given for this are DEI and trumpwashing the past. Of course, if you fire everyone who was concerned in some way with the investigations of January 6th or of Russia, that will be much or even most of the FBI. Those are bad reasons, but the reality is worse: the aim is lawlessness: to get the police and the patriots out of the way.

In the logic of destruction, there is no need to rebuild afterwards. In this chaos, the oligarchs will tell us that there is no choice but to have a strong man in charge. It can be a befuddled Trump signing ever larger pieces of paper for the cameras, or a conniving Vance who, unlike Trump, has always known the plot. Or someone else...

Almost everything that has happened during this attempted takeover is illegal. Lawsuits can be filed and courts can order that executive orders be halted. This is crucial work.

Much of what is happening, though, involves private individuals whose names are not even known, and who have no legal authority, wandering through government offices and issuing orders beyond even the questionable authority of executive orders. Their idea is that they will be immunized by their boldness. This must be proven wrong.

Some of this will reach the Supreme Court quickly. I am under no illusion that the majority of justices care about the rule of law. They know, however, that our belief in it makes their office something other than the undignified handmaiden of oligarchy. If they legalize the coup, they are irrelevant forever.

Individual Democrats in the Senate and House have legal and institutional tools to slow down the attempted oligarchical takeover. There should also be legislation. It might take a moment, but even Republican leaders might recognize that the Senate and House will no longer matter in a post-American oligarchy without citizens."

The Power of Three: Civility, Professionalism, and Zealous Advocacy; ABA Journal, November 5, 2024

 Jeanne M Huey, ABA Journal; The Power of Three: Civility, Professionalism, and Zealous Advocacy

"Balancing Civility, Professionalism, and Zealous Advocacy

 The “power of three” reminds us that civility, professionalism, and zealous advocacy are not competing ideals but instead work together to define our duty to our clients, our duty to the justice system, and our duty to respect others, which is the mark of effective lawyering. Zealous advocacy without civility leads to unproductive conflict, while civility without zeal risks losing sight of the client’s interests. Professionalism embraces both, ensuring that civility and advocacy serve the client and the justice system. A balanced commitment to all three creates a steady, resilient structure that upholds a lawyer’s duty to serve their client’s best interests within the rule of law."

Trump’s Friday night massacre is blatantly illegal; The Washington Post, January 25, 2025

Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post;  Trump’s Friday night massacre is blatantly illegal

"Contempt for law. Contempt for Congress. Contempt for oversight. That is the lesson of President Donald Trump’s Friday night massacre of at least 15 inspectors general — most of them appointed by Trump himself in his first term.

The blatantly illegal action is troubling in itself — nonpartisan inspectors general play a critical role in assuring the lawful and efficient operations of government, in Democratic and Republican administrations alike. An administration supposedly focused on making government more efficient would be empowering inspectors general, not firing them en masse.

But this episode is even more alarming than that. It offers a chilling foreshadowing of Trump unbound, heedless of the rule of law and unwilling to tolerate any potential impediment to his authority."

Chief Justice John Roberts Thinks You're Stupid And He's Probably Right; Above The Law, January 2, 2025

JOE PATRICE, Above The Law; Chief Justice John Roberts Thinks You're Stupid And He's Probably Right

"As Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts prepares a year-end report, ostensibly to communicate with the American people — or Congress — about the state of the federal judiciary and his vision for the branch’s future. His approach this year is to condescend to the public while ignoring every useful area of inquiry about the court system.

Because he thinks everyone is too stupid to care...

More likely, this is a bid to undermine the public’s faith in legal analysis. The public doesn’t necessarily appreciate how much obfuscation exists in rulings by design let alone when a judge affirmatively tries to muddy the waters. When a court tries to say “oh, we didn’t really do what the analysts are saying, we decided it on standing!” the public relies on legal analysts to cut through this nonsense and explain what they’ve actually done...

America should demand more from a Chief Justice. But it won’t."

‘This Is the Land of Wolves Now’: Two Columnists Get to the Heart of Biden’s Pardon; The New York Times, December 3, 2024

ROSS DOUTHAT AND DAVID FRENCH, The New York Times; ‘This Is the Land of Wolves Now’: Two Columnists Get to the Heart of Biden’s Pardon

"Patrick Healy, the deputy Opinion editor, hosted an online conversation with the Times Opinion columnists Ross Douthat and David French about President Biden’s decision to issue a broad pardon to his son Hunter Biden.

Patrick Healy: Ross and David, you both have written extensively about the rule of law and presidential power. You both have a good sense of what American voters care about. And you both are fathers. So I’m curious what struck you most about President Biden’s statement that he was pardoning his son Hunter Biden.

David French: As a father, I think it would be very, very hard to watch your son go to prison — especially if you have the power to set him free. I can’t imagine the pain of watching Hunter’s long battle with substance abuse and then watching his conviction in court. But in his role as president, Biden’s primary responsibility is to the country and the Constitution, not his family.

As president, this pardon represents a profound failure. Biden was dishonest — he told us that he wouldn’t pardon Hunter — and this use of the pardon power reeks of the kind of royal privilege that is antithetical to America’s republican values...

Ross Douthat: I think it’s important to stress that Biden always kept Hunter close, within the larger aura of his own power, in ways that likely helped his son trade on his dad’s name even as his own life was completely out of control. This pardon is a continuation or completion of that closeness: It’s a moral failure, as David says, a dereliction, but one that’s of a piece with the president’s larger inability to create a sustained separation between his own position and his troubled son’s lifestyle and business dealings and place in the family’s inner circle. A clearer separation would have been better not just for the president and the country, but also for Hunter himself — even if he’s benefiting from it now, at the last."

Broad Pardon for Hunter Biden Troubles Experts; The New York Times, December 2, 2024

Kenneth P. Vogel, The New York Times; Broad Pardon for Hunter Biden Troubles Experts

"Jeffrey Crouch, an assistant professor of politics at American University who studies clemency, drew a distinction between what presidents can do, and what they should do.

“Legally, the president can pardon pretty much whomever they want,” he said in an email. “Morally, it does raise some questions.”

Sean Rowe wants to realign the Episcopal Church; Religion News Service via AP, November 19, 2024

YONAT SHIMRON , Religion News Service via AP; Sean Rowe wants to realign the Episcopal Church

How do you see the church in the next four years vis-à-vis the Trump administration?

I’m gonna continue to call the church to stand with the least of these. We have for many years had a significant ministry with refugees. We’re one of 13 federal agencies that resettles refugees. We will continue that work. We want to stand with those who are seeking refuge in this country and stand on our record of success, resettling asylum-seekers and refugees. We’re Christians who support the dignity, safety and equality of women and LGBTQ people. We understand that not as a political statement but as an expression of our faith. We may disagree about immigration policy in the pews. We’re largely united about our support of people who are seeking refuge and asylum and inclusion of all people.

Has the church taken a stand on Christian nationalism?

Our House of Bishops has at least a theological report on Christian nationalism, which I think is well done. We’re after creating an inclusive, welcoming church that helps to transform the world. Christian nationalism really has no place. We will bring forth an understanding of the kingdom of God that is entirely in opposition to those ways of thinking and the values of Christian nationalism.

You yourself were once an evangelical. You went to Grove City College, a conservative evangelical school. What happened?

I attended Grove City College but I did not learn Christian nationalism there. I learned about the rule of law as a core fundamental and that’s what I don’t see in a lot of the thinking that is there now. I always struggled with a lack of an expansive or inclusive worldview that did not account for the complexity of human nature and the world around me. It felt limiting and narrow to me. I had friends who came out as LGBTQ, I traveled to see how other cultures lived and thought. As my world expanded, I came back to new understandings. I’ve gone from being an evangelical Christian, as the term is understood today, to someone who understands God as much broader and the world as much more complex than I once thought."

As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator; The New York Times, October 22, 2024

Michael S. Schmidt, The New York Times; As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator

"Few top officials spent more time behind closed doors in the White House with President Donald J. Trump than John F. Kelly, the former Marine general who was his longest-serving chief of staff.

With Election Day looming, Mr. Kelly — deeply bothered by Mr. Trump’s recent comments about employing the military against his domestic opponents — agreed to three on-the-record, recorded discussions with a reporter for The New York Times about the former president, providing some of his most wide-ranging comments yet about Mr. Trump’s fitness and character...

Here are excerpts from, and audio of, Mr. Kelly’s comments...

Trump told him that “Hitler did some good things.”

Mr. Kelly confirmed previous reports that on more than one occasion Mr. Trump spoke positively of Hitler.

“He commented more than once that, ‘You know, Hitler did some good things, too,’” Mr. Kelly said Mr. Trump told him...

Kelly said Trump looked down on those who were disabled on the battlefield.

In response to a question about previous stories about Mr. Trump having disdain for disabled veterans, Mr. Kelly said Mr. Trump did not want to be seen in public with those who had lost limbs on the battlefield.

“Certainly his not wanting to be seen with amputees — amputees that lost their limbs in defense of this country fighting for every American, him included, to protect them, but didn’t want to be seen with them. That’s an interesting perspective for the commander in chief to have.”

“He would just say: ‘Look, it just doesn’t look good for me.’”

He said Trump called service members who were injured or killed “losers and suckers,” despite denials from Trump and some aides.

Confirming a statement he gave to CNN last year, Mr. Kelly said that on multiple occasions Mr. Trump told him that those Americans wounded, captured or killed in action were “losers and suckers.”

“The time in Paris was not the only time that he ever said it,” Mr. Kelly said, referring to reports that Mr. Trump told him that he did not want to visit a cemetery where American service members killed during World War I were buried...

Mr. Kelly had nothing good to say about Mr. Trump

Mr. Kelly was asked whether Mr. Trump had any empathy

“No,” Mr. Kelly said.""

Council of Europe opens first ever global treaty on AI for signature; Council of Europe, September 5, 2024

 Council of Europe; Council of Europe opens first ever global treaty on AI for signature

"The Council of Europe Framework Convention on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy, and the rule of law (CETS No. 225) was opened for signature during a conference of Council of Europe Ministers of Justice in Vilnius. It is the first-ever international legally binding treaty aimed at ensuring that the use of AI systems is fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

The Framework Convention was signed by Andorra, Georgia, Iceland, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, the United Kingdom as well as Israel, the United States of America and the European Union...

The treaty provides a legal framework covering the entire lifecycle of AI systems. It promotes AI progress and innovation, while managing the risks it may pose to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. To stand the test of time, it is technology-neutral."

Russian court jails US-Russian woman for 12 years over $50 charity donation; The Guardian, August 15, 2024

Associated Press via The Guardian; Russian court jails US-Russian woman for 12 years over $50 charity donation

"A Russian court on Thursday sentenced the US-Russian dual national Ksenia Khavana to 12 years in prison on a treason conviction for allegedly raising money for the Ukrainian military.

The rights group the First Department said the charges stemmed from a $51 (£40) donation to a US charity that helps Ukraine.

Khavana, whom Russian authorities identify by her birth name of Karelina, was arrested in Ekaterinburg in February. She pleaded guilty in her closed trial last week, news reports said.

Khavana reportedly obtained US citizenship after marrying an American and moving to Los Angeles. She had returned to Russia to visit her family."

Bipartisan Legal Group Urges Lawyers to Defend Against ‘Rising Authoritarianism’; The New York Times, August 1, 2024

Charlie Savage , The New York Times; Bipartisan Legal Group Urges Lawyers to Defend Against ‘Rising Authoritarianism’

"A bipartisan American Bar Association task force is calling on lawyers across the country to do more to help protect democracy ahead of the 2024 election, warning in a statement to be delivered Friday at the group’s annual meeting in Chicago that the nation faces a serious threat in “rising authoritarianism.”

The statement by a panel of prominent legal thinkers and other public figures — led by J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal appeals court judge appointed by President George Bush, and Jeh C. Johnson, a Homeland Security secretary during the Obama administration — does not mention by name former President Donald J. Trump.

But in raising alarms, the panel appeared to be clearly referencing Mr. Trump’s attempt to subvert his loss of the 2020 election, which included attacks on election workers who were falsely accused by Mr. Trump and his supporters of rigging votes and culminated in the violent attack on the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021."

Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law; The Washington Post, July 29, 2024

Joe Biden , The Washington Post; Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law

"That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.

First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is noimmunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.

Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court.

Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt.

All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans — as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.

We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power. We can and must restore the public’s faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.

In America, no one is above the law. In America, the people rule."

How to Get Voters the Facts They Need Without a Trump Jan. 6 Trial; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Andrew Weissmann, The New York Times ; How to Get Voters the Facts They Need Without a Trump Jan. 6 Trial

"The benefit of an evidentiary hearing would be enormous, giving the public at least some information it needs before going to the polls in November. The hearing would permit the airing, in an adversarial proceeding with full due process for Mr. Trump, evidence that goes to the heart of the most profound indictment in this nation’s history."

Biden Warns That Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Michael D. Shear , The New York Times; Biden Warns That Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Will Embolden Trump

"President Biden warned on Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity meant that there were “virtually no limits on what the president can do” and urged voters to prevent former President Donald J. Trump from returning to the White House freed from the constraints of the law.

“The American people must decide if they want to entrust the president once again — the presidency — to Donald Trump,” Mr. Biden said during brief remarks, “knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.”"

The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System; The New York Times, July 1, 2024

Laurence H. Tribe, The New York Times ; The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System

"The American people can still vote this November to reject what would be a devastating blow to the survival of government by and for the people. But whatever one believes about the likely outcome, we can and should also begin talk of amending the Constitution to repair these structural flaws. Whether Trumpism implodes later rather than sooner, we must remember that over the course of our history, we have made progress toward a “more perfect Union” only by imagining a better future and struggling to embody it in our fundamental law. Sometimes we’ve amended the Constitution after a national upheaval as convulsive as the Civil War. At other times, however, less traumatic events affecting the presidency, in particular, have prompted constitutional reform.

To repair the profound and growing problem of presidential unaccountability, we must dare to design a separate branch of government, outside the existing three, charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws."