No sooner did Donald Trump swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution than he signed executive orders violating it. Perhaps that is why he chose not to place his hand on the bible while taking the oath.
The transition from one administration to another can always feel a bit rough, but this is especially true when Trump is involved. In 2021, he instigated an insurrection and, when that failed, boycotted Joe Biden’s swearing in.
This year, Inauguration Day began with some last-minute pardons of family members by Biden that, candidly, do not reflect well on his commitment to an equal justice system. But they pale in comparison to Trump’s decision to pardon more than 1,500 individuals convicted of crimes related to Jan. 6, 2021 — including people convicted of felony assault on police officers.
Trump followed this by instructing the Department of Justice to drop pending all pending cases involving crimes committed in connection with the mob violence of that day. So much for Trump not directing line-level prosecutorial decisions.
Then there were the various executive orders intended to “shock and awe” us into submission. As several legal commentators noted, what was most shocking was the sloppiness of the legal work in connection with many of these orders.
One of those, involving Trump’s purported claim to ban birthright citizenship, was called out by a Republican-appointed federal judge on Thursday. “There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say where were the judges, where were the lawyers,” the judge wondered aloud during a hearing to block Trump’s efforts.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the case presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” Rough stuff and well deserved.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country on Thursday, a federal appeals panel heard arguments in a key Voting Rights Act case involving Georgia’s legislative districts. Regular readers of Democracy Docket know that in that case Brad Raffensperger — yes, that guy — is seeking to strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and claim that private parties cannot sue to enforce it.
In normal times, the fact that the Department of Justice was defending the VRA would cause little stir. However, we do not live in normal times. So, all eyes were on the lectern on Thursday when the lawyer for the Justice Department stepped forward and did just that. Good for them!
One wonders how long the career lawyers at the voting rights section of the DOJ will be permitted to advocate for voting rights. But at least for one more day, they did.
We are in a turbulent period where there is an uneven system of justice. Who get pardons, who get defended and who is allowed to argue and say what are all in flux.
None of this changes the basic facts that right is right and wrong is wrong. Jan. 6, 2021, was an attack on the peaceful transfer of power and those convicted of crimes related that day will forever be stained by their participation in them. The Constitution provides for birthright citizenship. The Voting Rights Act is the crown jewel of American democracy.
I write this newsletter for you each week to help you focus on what is happening to our democracy in court. This week, it may have seemed more obvious, when it was really just a lot more uneven.
