Reclaim Democracy!

April Fools Day, but No Joke

by

At least four Justices want to debate whether the Trump Regime can flout plain constitutional language

As if to invite mockery, the Supreme Court Justices chose April Fools Day to hear oral argument in Trump v. Barbara (also referred to as Trump v. CASA), a case that tells us at least four Justices who voted to review the lower court ruling see the Constitution’s plain language as a joke. 

The Justices will literally debate whether the authors of the 14th Amendment meant what they wrote in one of the Constitution’s clearest passages. Section 1 establishes, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

On Trump’s first day in office in 2025, the White House released an Executive Order claiming those words don’t mean what they say. In Trump v Barbara, several Justices who previously claimed to be “textualist” will assess whether the Trump Regime is entitled to ignore plain constitutional text and deny citizenship to U.S. – born children if the mother did not meet the regime’s preferred criteria. Trump’s arguments have already been dismissed in lower court rulings.

As we prepared to write about this case and the relevant precedents, we found some outstanding reports already published so we decided our readers might be better served by excerpting and linking two of the best.

In Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie writes:

Trump is claiming that he has the unilateral power to create a permanent, hereditary legal underclass unseen in America since before the Civil War. In doing so, he is rehashing grotesque legal arguments that every branch of government has rejected for generations, and placing himself at odds with the plain text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress adopted the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War in significant part to repudiate the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford. That 1857 case held that the longstanding principle of citizenship by birth categorically did not apply to Black Americans, whether free or enslaved, and that they could never become citizens of the United States. Eleven years later, in order to reject this holding and to place the citizenship of disfavored minorities beyond political dispute, Congress declared in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

In 1898, 30 years after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether “all persons” really meant “all persons.”

Read the full article on BallsandStrikes.org

In Vox, Ian Millhiser writes

The heart of Trump’s brief is a list (on pages 26–28) of quotations from 19th and early 20th century books and law review articles that make the same argument Morse made in his 1881 treatise. Trump’s lawyers claim that the 14th Amendment does not apply to “children of temporarily present aliens or illegal aliens.”

The mere fact that an argument existed in the late 19th century does not prove it was widely accepted, or even that it enjoyed any meaningful support. According to Erman and Perl-Rosenthal, even Morse eventually rejected the anti-citizenship argument he made in his 1881 book, telling the American Bar Association in an 1884 speech that tying citizenship to whether the parents are permanent residents of the United States “utterly fails to furnish a convenient or practical rule of decision.” (Although Morse came up with other legal arguments seeking to diminish the 14th Amendment.)

Trump, in other words, seeks to justify his anti-citizenship order using a century-and-a-half old idea that was swiftly rejected even by its most prominent 19th-century proponent.

Read the full story at Vox.com

Tough questions and answers for counsel

For those who really want to get wonky on this case, Akhil and Vikram Amar & Samarth Desai dreamed up tough questions the regressive Justices might ask Cecillia Wang of the ACLU, the attorney challenging Trump’s order.

Suppose a Russian-spy couple came to America and had a baby. How can you possibly insist that such a baby would be a U.S. citizen?

A: Constitutionally, children are not the same as their parents. Our Constitution repudiates corruption of blood and hereditary attainders; children cannot be punished or demeaned because of the misdeeds of their parents. Also, American citizens might themselves be tempted into Benedict Arnold-style treason or espionage, but here too it would be unconstitutional to de-citizenize their American-born children. Finally, let’s turn the question around. Suppose the espionage is discovered long after the baby’s birth. Shall we de-citizenize the person retroactively? One virtue of the 14th Amendment’s clear and clean rule is that, when a baby is born, the government does not need to worry about the countless complexities of how and when to determine parentage – a point powerfully made by Justice Brett Kavanaugh at oral argument in Trump v. CASA.

Read more on SCOTUSblog.com, along with the mock grilling of Trump’s attorney

Notes on the GOP Voter Suppression Act of 2026, AKA, the SAVE Act

by

At a March 17 press conference, a reporter asked GOP Speaker of the House Mike Johnson “Can you give one example of fraud in a previous election that the SAVE America Act would stop?” Johnson refused to answer because no such example exists. Here’s a quick account of the directives and problems with the Voter Suppression Act.

Voter fraud is extraordinarily rare, and virtually no votes have been cast by non-citizens
Even the data of right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation show the absurdity of GOP claims. In California, our most populous state, they claim to have found 71 cases of voting fraud…among more than 23 million registered voters…over more than two decades! In each of the last three years, Heritage researchers found exactly one proven instance of voter fraud. 

Citizenship is already a requirement to vote. Registering to vote in a federal election as a non-citizen is a felony punishable by imprisonment and immediate deportation; no sane person would consider such risk for a lottery-ticket chance of impacting an election outcome.

Utah just finished reviewing its entire voter registration list in January of 2026. After reviewing more than two million registered voters, they identified one instance of noncitizen registration, and zero instances of a non-citizen vote. Even the Trump Regime’s own investigation showed non-citizen voting to be a myth.

The proof-of-citizenship requirement as proposed is an unconstitutional poll tax
Currently, voters typically provide official ID and attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury. The SAVE Act would alter the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require most people provide proof of U.S. citizenship (no matter how long they’ve been registered) when registering to vote in federal elections. You will no longer be eligible to vote or register to vote using a driver’s license or other state-provided identification alone, but would be required to show a passport or a combination of documents and photo ID (detailed here). 

As of 2024, at least 21 million Americans did not possess this documentation. Any person who lacks their birth certificate or changed their name upon marriage or for other reasons may be in for a time-consuming and potentially costly chase to prove who they are. If the government wishes to scrutinize the citizenship of citizens, it may do so without burdening citizens with the cost. 

Under the SAVE Act, all those who register to vote by mail or online must visit an election office to show their proof-of-citizenship documents before being eligible.

Women will be impacted most heavily
For married women who have changed their names (more than 70% of those married), their current legal name does not match the name on their birth certificate. About half of adults have passports (costing over $100), but all others will need to provide additional documents to connect their birth name to their current name, creating a unique cost and burden.

Enforcement creates opportunities for discrimination and manipulation
Local officials will be left to decide what documentation is authentic. Given the recent record of partisan manipulation, the SAVE Act invites discrimination based on race, sex, or partisan affiliation.

The DHS, led by Trump loyalists, would acquire every state voter roll—supposedly so staff  could compare state rolls with the agency’s own citizenship data. But this data has historically been riddled with inaccuracies, and its use would likely lead to eligible voters being wrongfully booted from the rolls. 

Lower income people, who move more often, face disenfranchisement or additional costs and burdens
The SAVE Act not only requires proof of citizenship, but also proof of residence to register. Voters moving shortly before an election could be challenged if they do not immediately get a new driver’s license with their current address (usually at additional expense). On average, roughly one in 10 people moved in-state annually in recent years, but most people don’t update driver’s licenses until they must be renewed.

The Act would mandate voter roll purges every month, virtually ensuring some voters will be disenfranchised by mistakenly being removed from voter rolls right before Election Day.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (HR 22,) passed the House on a 220–208 vote, with four Democrats joining an otherwise party-line vote. As of March 20, 2026, a Senate vote appears imminent. Republicans seem unlikely to muster the 60 votes needed to break a certain Democratic filibuster. We urge you to call your Senator via the U.S. Capitol switchboard today at (202) 224-3121 to advise your Senators on the SAVE Act.

For additional details and information on the proposed (and even more extreme) Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, see Five Things to Know About the SAVE America Act

We can’t win playing only defense!
While Reclaim Democracy covers voter suppression attempts, we constantly work to focus energy on the root problem: U.S. citizens lack any affirmative right to vote and possess only voting privileges. See Key Elements of a Right to Vote Amendment to learn more.

Related resource: Landmarks in Voting History & Law

Expanding Access: How States Are Protecting Voting Rights

by

By Luisana Rodriguez

While using false claims about voter fraud to undermine public confidence in elections, Republican state legislators have often succeeded in creating new obstacles for Americans to cast ballots. In 2024, voters in 29 states faced at least 63 restrictive voting laws passed during the prior four years, and the attacks show no sign of letting up.

Yet, despite the understandable attention on these attacks, we also see citizens and legislators working successfully to proactively expand voting access and broaden participation. In September, 2025, Michigan’s state senate passed a Voting Rights Act that includes same-day voter registration, increased early voting, and expanded voting-by-mail options. The bill awaits action in the state House of Representatives, where Democrats hold a single-seat majority.

In 2024, Minnesota enacted its own multi-faceted VRA to strengthen voter protection, signed into law by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Democratic Party nominee for Vice-president. The Minnesota Rights Act protects ballot access for all residents and specifically aims to protect communities of color and other historically disenfranchised groups. 

Additionally, New York, Virginia, California, Oregon, Connecticut, Washington D.C., and Illinois, all recently expanded voter access or protection. A recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice notes these positive steps:

  • Virginia: Amplified access to drop boxes and absentee voting for individuals with visual impairments and eligible citizens in jail. New laws allow people with disabilities to vote outside polling places and broaden the criteria for disability eligibility.
  • California: For the upcoming elections, California will place drop boxes on state college campuses to encourage student participation.
  • Oregon: New requirements mandate translations of voting materials into more languages, ensuring that non-English speakers can access important voting information and understand the process better.
  • Connecticut: By offering an extended early voting period, Connecticut aims to improve voter participation and reduce long lines and wait times on Election Day.
  • Washington: A new law automatically restores voting rights to individuals with past convictions, even if they are still on parole, allowing more people to participate in the democratic system.
  • Illinois: The state has expanded vote-by-mail options to make it easier for residents to cast their ballots from home. Polling place hours have been extended, local jurisdictions can now set up polling places in jails, and central polling locations have been created in each county for added convenience.

Of course, no one should be deprived of voting rights because of the state they reside in, so passing nationwide protections like The Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) remains crucial. Throughout U.S. history, underrepresented communities faced tactics designed to repress their voting power, which accelerated since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling, which drastically weakened the Voting Rights Acts (1965) and enabled new state restrictions. Lawmakers passed onerous voter ID laws, voter roll purges, cuts to early voting, and other laws that impede voting and disproportionately affect marginalized groups. 

Color-coded map of U.S. states grouped by ease of voting and participating in elections

See details on how your state ranks for voting accessibility and what can be improved from the Movement Advancement Project, the source of the map above.

As a Venezuelan immigrant, I cannot vote, but I’m invested in the state of our democracy, especially when it comes to the rights of people of color. I consider protecting the rights of eligible BIPOC voters critical since they are not only voting for their own futures but also for the future of their communities, including those of us who don’t cast a ballot. It’s a shared responsibility that highlights the power of collective advocacy in a democracy.

The strength of this democracy relies on today’s actions—because protecting votes creates a fairer system, where decisions reflect the needs of the diverse populations living within our borders. In Venezuela, the regime of acting President Nicolás Maduro made it almost impossible for citizens living abroad to vote in the 2024 presidential election because most of them opposed his government, one that the United Nations accuses of crimes against humanity. 

Despite these barriers, the opposition candidate, Edmundo González, won by a margin of more than two to one. This achievement came from the hard work of dedicated individuals who ensured the ballots were counted and refused to let democracy die, even when the National Electoral Council failed to publish these results and ignored the mandatory transparency required in Venezuelan elections. While Maduro’s regime refuses to give up power, causing social and political conflicts that tear our people apart, the movement led by María Corina Machado continues to work every day to ensure our voices are heard, both at the ballot box and in the streets.

Here in the United States, people are taking crucial steps toward building a more inclusive democracy, where every individual—regardless of background—has a voice. As laws evolve and new challenges emerge, citizens must remain informed, engaged, and proactive in advocating for fair and accessible elections. While it’s now clear no federal voting rights legislation can pass unless a pro-democracy House of Representatives majority emerges from the November elections, we can encourage others in our community to vote, and share news of other state-level successes to remind people that when we work together, we can protect and strengthen our most fundamental rights.

Luisana Rodriguez is a freelance bilingual writer and the co-founder of an affinity group for Latinas in Vermont. She earned her BS in Psychology from Universidad Arturo Michelena in her home country of Venezuela. Luisana has contributed to Business Insider, Reader’s Digest UK, Her Agenda, Latino Leaders Magazine, and Mitú Magazine, among others. Currently, she works in advertising and marketing in Vermont and will soon begin further studies at Champlain College. 

4th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling in Garcia v. Noem

by

A panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit unanimously rejected the Trump regime’s plea to stay a lower court order to release Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador where men abducted from the U.S. are being held in subhuman conditions. The Court’s ruling was unusually concise and clear to non-lawyers, and is well worth reading, especially paragraphs 2-3.

FILED: April 17, 2025
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1404
KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA; JENNIFER STEFANIA VASQUEZ
SURA; A.A.V., a minor, by and through his next friend and mother, Jennifer
Vasquez Sura,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; KENNETH GENALO; NIKITA BAKER;
PAMELA JO BONDI; MARCO RUBIO,
Defendants – Appellants.


WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, with whom KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, join:
Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an
emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is
requesting is both extraordinary and premature. While we fully respect the Executive’s
robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine
district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision.

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it
is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country
in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our
constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody
that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that
Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government
is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to
terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the
government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to
a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia
was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong,
right?

The Supreme Court’s decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision
rightly requires the lower federal courts to give “due regard for the deference owed to the
Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949,
slip op. at 2 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299
U.S. 304, 319 (1936). That would allow sensitive diplomatic negotiations to be removed
from public view. It would recognize as well that the “facilitation” of Abrego Garcia’s
return leaves the Executive Branch with options in the execution to which the courts in
accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision should extend a genuine deference. That
decision struck a balance that does not permit lower courts to leave Article II by the
wayside.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do
essentially nothing. It requires the government “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from
custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he
not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. “Facilitate”
is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly
clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 (“[T]he Government should be prepared to
share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”).

The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the
government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a
definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. Cf.
Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty.,
529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is “remove
any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia’s] return,” Mot. for Stay at 2, is not well taken in
light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s
release from custody in El Salvador.

“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual
to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in
disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not
sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign
detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign
detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness
and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have
always stood.

The government is obviously frustrated and displeased with the rulings of the court.
Let one thing be clear. Court rulings are not above criticism. Criticism keeps us on our toes
and helps us do a better job. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 24 (1958) (Frankfurter, J.,
concurring) (“Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred.”).
Court rulings can overstep, and they can further intrude upon the prerogatives of other
branches. Courts thus speak with the knowledge of their imperfections but also with a sense
that they instill a fidelity to law that would be sorely missed in their absence.
“Energy in the [E]xecutive” is much to be respected. FEDERALIST NO. 70, at 423
(1789) (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). It can rescue government from
its lassitude and recalibrate imbalances too long left unexamined. The knowledge that
executive energy is a perishable quality understandably breeds impatience with the courts.
Courts, in turn, are frequently attuned to caution and are often uneasy with the Executive
Branch’s breakneck pace.

And the differences do not end there. The Executive is inherently focused upon
ends; the Judiciary much more so upon means. Ends are bestowed on the Executive by
electoral outcomes. Means are entrusted to all of government, but most especially to the
Judiciary by the Constitution itself.

The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with
powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due
process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will
not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?∗ And
what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary
powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be
present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.


Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any
authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. See President Trump Participates
in a Bilateral Meeting with the President of El Salvador, WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 14, 2025).
We are told that neither government has the power to act. The result will be to leave matters
generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law
of any sort.


The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual
respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the
Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for
impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard
court orders sadly illustrate. ∗ See, e.g., Michelle Stoddart, ‘Homegrowns are Next’: Trump Doubles Down on Sending American ‘Criminals’ to Foreign Prisons, ABC NEWS (Apr. 14, 2025, 6:04 PM);
David Rutz, Trump Open to Sending Violent American Criminals to El Salvador Prisons,
FOX NEWS (Apr. 15, 2025, 11:01 AM EDT).

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage
example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his
“inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of
Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.” Address by the President
of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957);
349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very
basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the
Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the
decisions of the Federal Courts.” Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words,
“[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.” Id.

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a
conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The
Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent
of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from
a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive
may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic
gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.
It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it
may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe
our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American
ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the
best that is within us while there is still time.

In sum, and for the reasons foregoing, we deny the motion for the stay pending
appeal and the writ of mandamus in this case. It is so ordered.


For the Court
/s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk

Trump’s “Tariffs” Are Not Economic Tools. They’re Weapons for Domestic Oppression

by

Editor’s note: The following thoughts are compiled from a BlueSky thread by Senator Chris Murphy (Connecticut). Though we prefer the plain language of nationwide sales tax to repeating Trump’s preferred label of tariffs, Murphy beautifully summarizes the proper way to understand and frame Trump’s new sales taxes–the largest tax increase in at least several generations.

Those trying to understand the tariffs as economic policy are dangerously naive.

No, the tariffs are a tool to collapse our democracy. A means to compel loyalty from every business that will need to petition Trump for relief.

A thread to explain his plan and how we fight back.

This week you will read many confused economists and political pundits who won’t understand how the tariffs make economic sense. 

That’s because they don’t. They aren’t designed as economic policy. The tariffs are simply a new, super dangerous political tool.

You see, our founders created a President with limited and checked powers. They specifically put the power of spending and taxation in the hands of the legislature. 

Why? Because they watched how kings and despots used spending and taxes to control their subjects.

British kings used taxation to reward loyalty and punish dissent. 

Our own revolution was spurred by the King’s use of heavy taxation of the colonies to punish our push for self governance. 

Trump knows that he can weaken (and maybe destroy) democracy by using spending and taxation in the same way. 

He is using access to government funds to bully universities, law firms and state and local governments into loyalty pledges.

Healthy democracies rely on an independent legal profession to maintain the rule of law, independent universities to guard objective truth and provide forums for dissent to authority, and independent state/local government to counterbalance a powerful federal government.

But the private sector also plays a rule to protect democracy. Independent industry has power.

The tariffs are Trump’s tool to erode that independence. Now, one by one, every industry or company will need to pledge loyalty to Trump in order to get sanctions relief.

What could Trump demand as part of a quiet loyalty pledge? 

Public shows of support from executives for all his economic policy. Contributions to his political efforts. Promises to police employees’ support for his political opposition.

The tariffs are DESIGNED to create economic hardship. Why? So that Trump has a straight face rationale for releasing them, business by business or industry by industry. 

As he adjusts or grants relief, it’s a win-win: the economy improves and dissent disappears.

And once Trump has the lawyers, colleges and industry under his thumb, it becomes very hard for the opposition to have any viable space to maneuver. 

Trump didn’t invent this strategy. It’s the playbook for democratically elected leaders who want to stay in power forever.

The tariffs aren’t economic policy. They are political weapons. 

But as long as we see this clearly, we can stop him. Public mobilization is working. Today, a few Republicans joined Democrats to vote against one set of tariffs. 

The people still have the power.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml  If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Resignation Letter of Hagan Scotten in Response to Pam Bondi’s Attempt to Dismiss Charges Against Eric Adams

by

The letter below is written by Hagan Scotten, an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney, wrote to Emil Bove, acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General to quit in protest over Pam Bondi’s order to dismiss New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ bribery case. His letter came one day after Danielle Sassoon, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, resigned, refusing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s directive to drop the case. A grand jury indicted Adams but Bondi sought to dismiss his charges in return for a pledge by Adams to assist Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda in NYC.

We offer their letters (Sassoon’s is linked above, with additional context) to highlight those acting with integrity to defeat the attempted authoritarian takeover by the Musk/Trump regime. While those complying with the authoritarians deserve scorn, it’s even more important to celebrate and amplify the growing number of people making personal sacrifices to defend our country from the saboteurs within.

February 12, 2025

Mr. Bove,

I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, including the express possibility of reinstatement of the indictment. That is not exactly correct. The U.S.Attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon never asked me to file such a motion, and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so, for the reasons stated in her February 12, 2025 letter to the Attorney General.

In short, the first justification for the motion—that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys—is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.

There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake. Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new Administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal. 

image saying:

But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens,much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.

Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.

Yours truly,Hagan Scotten
Assistant United States Attorney