It’s about more than the former president. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌   ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌   ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌   ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌   ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌   ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌   
Brennan Center for Justice The Briefing
UCLA law professor Richard L. Hasen has called U.S. v. Trump the most important criminal case in American history. I think he’s right. Donald Trump will be the most significant person to ever stand trial for attempting to undermine American democracy.
The indictment paints a damning picture. Trump launched a campaign of lies: That tens of thousands of dead people voted in Georgia. That noncitizens swung the election against him in Arizona. That there were more votes than people in Pennsylvania. That votes were double counted in Nevada. That there was a “dump” of illegitimate ballots in Michigan. Lies, lies for every battleground state.
Trump’s lawyers claim, among other things, that he believed these delusions, so he could not have broken the law. But nearly every person he relied on before the election told him these claims were false. His attorney general. His most ardent supporters in state legislatures. The director of national intelligence. The vice president of the United States. Trump assembled an entirely new group of lawyers — “team crazy,” some called them — because his existing advisers unanimously rejected his lies.
In any case, this defense won’t necessarily go far. A person may convince themself that the money in a bank vault is theirs, but that doesn’t give them the right to rob the bank.
According to the indictment, Trump organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven states. His team even lied to some of those people, falsely assuring them they would not be deployed unless he prevailed in court. He then used the phony electors to try to leverage his vice president to reverse his election defeat.
We all know what happened next. But U.S. law does not require that a conspiracy succeed to be prosecutable.
Brennan Center experts have offered important analysis and commentary, and we’ll have more to say as the case unfolds. My colleague Ian Vandewalker argued that the indictment represents another rejection of election denial, following Trump’s defeats in court and voters’ repudiation of the conspiracy theory in the 2022 midterms. Elizabeth Howard touted the prosecution as an important signal of support to election officials. Many suffered threats to themselves and their families, and this indictment vindicates their honesty and dedication. Sean Morales-Doyle and Gabriella Sanchez explained a law known as Section 241, which dates back to the Reconstruction era. Originally part of the Ku Klux Klan Acts, which aimed to protect Black voters from the domestic terror group, the law has more recently been used to prosecute those who stuff ballot boxes or attempt to bribe voters. It’s appropriate for the allegations against Trump, whose actions would have effectively disenfranchised millions.
Lauren Miller and Wendy Weiser make a point that should ring throughout this election season: Trump’s gambit failed in 2020, but it gave rise to an “always on” campaign of voter suppression and election subversion that continues to this day. State legislatures have passed laws that restrict the right to vote and open the door to partisan interference in elections. These laws are inspired by many of the same wild falsehoods as Donald Trump’s alleged conspiracy to undermine our democracy. At the bottom of all of this is the Big Lie.
When Judge Tanya S. Chutkan gavels the court to order, Donald Trump won’t be the only one standing trial. The Big Lie itself will be put to the test. Free of social media bubbles or the obfuscation of media pundits, we will see how poorly the election denial movement stands up to scrutiny. It’s a big moment for democracy.

 
A Frontal Assault on the First Amendment
A recent federal appeals court ruling has undercut protest rights. Deviating from long-standing precedent, the decision in Doe v. Mckesson allows a protest leader to be sued for injuries caused by an unrelated protester, creating an alarming First Amendment loophole that could stifle the freedoms of speech and assembly. If this antidemocratic ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court, Rachel Levinson-Waldman and Theodore Tamayo write, “the justices should take the case, repudiate the Fifth Circuit’s dangerous error, and vindicate the right to protest.” Read more
Defending Everyone’s Freedom to Vote
In the wake of former President Trump’s indictment for attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss, threats to multiracial democracy, such as voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering, persist. The Freedom to Vote Act, reintroduced in Congress last month, would help establish national standards to safeguard elections against manipulation. It would address obstacles that disproportionately harm Black and Latino voters. To repel these ongoing attacks, Mireya Navarro writes, we need “both old and new laws that protect our freedom to vote freely and equally.” Read more
Tracking Proposed AI Regulations
The rapid growth of the artificial intelligence market and huge advances in these technologies’ capabilities have exposed the benefits and risks of AI. Congress is now scrambling to regulate the field. A new Brennan Center resource tracks AI legislation introduced in Congress this session. The bills covered include measures that would require AI firms to conduct evaluations of the technology and its uses, impose transparency and labeling requirements, and create or designate a regulatory authority to oversee AI. READ MORE
The Fight for Fair Maps in State Courts
Since a 2019 Supreme Court decision closed federal courts’ doors to partisan gerrymandering claims, voters have increasingly turned to state courts and constitutions to challenge gerrymandered districts. Such claims have been filed in 17 states so far this redistricting cycle. A new Brennan Center resource details the status of partisan gerrymandering litigation across the country. Read more
The Right to Fight Election Disinformation on Social Media
On Thursday, the Fifth Circuit will hear an appeal of a July decision that barred government officials from communicating with social media companies. In Missouri v. Biden, a district court had agreed with claims that the government was acting to censor conservative views, violating the freedom of speech. The sweeping ruling also applied to all those “acting in concert with” the government, threatening the ability of civil society groups to communicate with officials about election-related misinformation. The Brennan Center and allies have filed an amicus brief opposing the ruling, which is on hold pending appeal. “The government has a responsibility to facilitate democratic participation and, importantly, the government merely sharing information about the accuracy and impacts of the content hosted by social media platforms does not automatically amount to a constitutional violation,” Robyn Sanders and Ashleigh Maciolek write. READ MORE

 
News
  • Alice Clapman on the fight to uphold democratic norms in Ohio // NEWS 21
  • Sean Morales-Doyle on Trump’s latest federal indictment // LOS ANGELES TIMES
  • Gowri Ramachandran on hand-counting ballots // NBC
  • Hernandez Stroud on a potential federal takeover of New York City’s jails // VITAL CITY

 
 
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here to update your preferences.
Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn YouTube Website