democracy – Page 4 – Bumpass Prose and Politics

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of May 16, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

The big issue this week was the arguments before the Supreme Court regarding the Trump’s executive order eliminating birthright citizenship. The arguments were more about whether federal district judges can issue nationwide injunctions, or pauses, not so much the constitutionality of the executive order itself.

The justices, from what I gathered, seemed conflicted about whether to limit federal judges ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially if letting the law go into effect nationwide will cause great harm while the case winds its way through the courts. I would think revoking birthright citizenship, or invoking the Alien Enemies Act, or suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus would fall into that category of immense national harm should the executive order or law be permitted to go forth while it is being fought over in the courts.

It the Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, it would have to devise a clear set of rules for when a judge may order a nationwide injunction or limit the injunction to their district. I don’t see that happening, if they do, they are crazier than I thought. Or worse yet, rule that federal district court rulings are limited to the district in which the court resides. There are 94 federal court districts, chaos would ensue.

If the Court eliminates nationwide injunctions outright while the constitutionality of the law is being challenged, that would trigger the very real possibility that half the country will have one set of constitutional rights while the other half would have a different set of constitutional rights. For example, if Trump suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus, five or six district judges may impose an injunction in their districts, but a district in Texas where an immigrant detention facility is located, may not see the suspension of the Writ as unconstitutional. That would then permit hundreds if not thousands of deportations without due process. The harm would be immense.

In another important ruling, the Supreme Court did extend a block on deporting migrants from Texas using the Alien Enemies Act today (May 16). Sending the case back to a lower court for additional litigation.

Republicans should be wary of Trump getting his way on this issue of nationwide injunctions and executive orders. The next Democratic president could declare that the second amendment does not protect the manufacture or possession of AR-15 or similar type weapons. The president could use an executive order to prohibit the possession, manufacture, sale, and transportation of these items across state lines.

Republicans are painting themselves into a very small separation of powers corner. Mitch McConnel basically shanked the Senate years ago. Mike Johnson turned the House of Representatives into a spittoon full of, you know spit. Chief Justice John Roberts, just can’t get his head out of his butt, all but declaring Trump King last term. Although, I must say, after creating this Frankenstein presidency, he is doing his best to cage the beast.

Republicans act as if the Democrats will be forever in the wilderness, a token political party for show during elections, but powerless. If that was their goal, we shall see how they react to losing in the mid-terms and in 2028 Will they accept the outcome(s)? And once the Democrats return to power, how can they ever, ever, claim overreach?

Amazingly, because of court action and popular backlash to the excesses of the Trump White House by DOGE — and don’t forget the tariff mess — the guard rails are bending, but still in place in some places. Where the guardrails are missing is Congress. They are not checking the accumulation of congressionally enumerated powers into the executive branch and seem not to have any interest in checking his power, mostly out of fear I suspect. Then again, some just that holy grail, $5 trillion in tax cuts. most of which will go to the top 1 percent (that is them and their millionaire class)

Some examples of Congressional nonfeasance revolve around Trump’s personal corruption and profiteering from office . For instance his ongoing attempt to accept a $400 million 747 from the Emir of Qatar for use as Air Force 1, and it being ‘decommissioned’ and transferred to his presidential library foundation following his presidency; his sale contest of $Trump (a crypto currency) for White House tour (access?); pocketing tens of millions of dollars in crypto fees through the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial, are all examples of Republicans in Congress looking the other way while Trump engages in what appears to be unconstitutional and corrupt practices.

While there have been some tactical and strategic setbacks for Trump, as the initial 100 days passes into the next 60 days, we are not out of harms way. He will become more dangerous. And, like a trapped and cornered animal, will attack, hard and fierce. Hang on, it will be like holding on to the ears of an angry wolf.

For a cumulative list of backsliding and erosion of our democracy, please click ‘benchmarks’ or menu above. Updates are in bold.

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of May 9, 2025

I apologize for skipping a week (or two), but was traveling out of town. I also needed a short mental holiday.

The courts are doing their job for the most part. Congress….not so much.

A federal Judge ordered the release of detained Turkish PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk, who is attending Tuft’s University on a student visa, following the submission of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In its usual measured response to adverse court orders, Trump advisor Stephen Miller said the White House is actively considering revoking the Writ of Habeas Corpus for ‘migrants.’ The Constitution clearly states that the writ may not be suspended “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.” Please see my earlier April 2 essay on Habeas Corpus for a more in-depth discussion on the writ.

In another ruling, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary pause on DOGE’s bulldozing of government agencies and mass firings. Congress did not authorize such activity, per the judge: “As history demonstrates, the President may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress.”

In further court activity regarding Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly detained and deported to El Salvador’s terrorism prison, government lawyers are once again stonewalling the Federal Judge overseeing the case. Government lawyers invoked the ‘State Secrets Privilege.’ This privilege (a Supreme Court invention) lets the government withhold information from a court during civil litigation if the information could damage national security. Unless the information the government lawyers have contain military invasion plans of El Salvador, it is a bullshit ploy. And they know it. Start throwing these bums in jail Judge! Maybe Alcatraz?

Overall, there has been a slight lull in the war on the Constitution, but I think that is because Trump is busy cleaning up his self inflicted tariff mess. If his nomination of Fox host and TV pundit Jeannie Pirro to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — replacing the outgoing interim U.S. Attorney who can’t get confirmed — is any indication, the war on decency and rule of law is entering a new low point. She has not worked in the law field in over two decades and her only previous experience was at a local elected judge and then local prosecutor in the early 90s. She will also be the 23rd Fox News personality to get a Trump administration job.

I imagine as the American economy stalls and the U.S. becomes increasingly isolated as a global pariah, Trump will double down on his autocratic tendencies. He pretty much has usurped Congress’ authority, now he needs to go hard and fast after independent new organizations. I expect to see a slew of FCC preliminary investigative reports and license revocations within the next month or two.

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments: How The Supreme Court, Trump, and the Far Right intend to undermine the First Amendment

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments whether Oklahoma state tax dollars must be used to fund religious-based charter schools. The state denied a Catholic Church school’s request for public funding. During the arguments, most justices seem inclined to require that states provide taxpayer dollars to religious charter schools, if they meet all the other charter school requirements. If the Court decides to require public funds go to support religious-based charter schools, this would be a fundamental reinterpretation of the 1^st Amendment, what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation” between church and state in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

I don’t think it a coincidence that a week or so after the Supreme Courts’ arguments, Trump signed an executive order establishing a “Religious Liberty Commission.” The purpose of the commission is outlined in the instructions:

“The Commission shall produce a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, the impact of religious liberty on American society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations, and programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism. Specific topics to be considered by the Commission under these categories shall include the following areas: the First Amendment rights of pastors, religious leaders, houses of worship, faith-based institutions, and religious speakers; attacks across America on houses of worship of many religions; debanking of religious entities; the First Amendment rights of teachers, students, military chaplains, service members, employers, and employees; conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates; parents’ authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children, including the right to choose a religious education; permitting time for voluntary prayer and religious instruction at public schools; Government displays with religious imagery; and the right of all Americans to freely exercise their faith without fear or Government censorship or retaliation.”

While the language seems religion neutral, we all know this is about Christian religious freedoms and establishing Christianity as America’s established religion. I don’t see Islamic or Buddhist or Hindu religious imagery being displayed next to the Ten Commandments at public schools. Do you? Be very afraid. Our founding generation was fearful of the establishment of a religious state. This fear animated two of Virginia’s most influential writers and thinkers: James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

When Virginia’s General Assembly wanted to impose a ‘religious assessment,’ basically a tax to support churches, Madison and Jefferson opposed the measure. As did the Baptist’s who suffered intolerable abuse by the Anglican Church prior to the Revolution. In the “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” Madison penned a cogent argument that is a relevant today as it was in 1785.

I think it one of the seminal documents in our history as both Virginians and Americans. As such, I have summarized Madison’s 15 key arguments below. They are worth a close read.

Religious liberty was “in its nature an unalienable right….because the opinions of men, depending only upon the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men…. Religion is wholly exempt from the cognizance [of civil society].”
“Since civil society itself had not right to interfere with religion, certainly the legislature, its creature, had no such right.”
“It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties… Who does no see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same case any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”
“The exercise of religion implies the right to believe in no religion at all, so even the most permissive tax to support religion might violate some consciences.”
“Civil magistrates can properly neither judge religious truth nor subordinate religion to public purposes.”
The Christian religion did not need civil support, it had often “existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.”
“’Ecclesiastical establishment,’ far from promoting religious purity and efficacy, had nearly always corrupted and stultified it.”
“Rather than promoting order and freedom in civil society, religious establishments had ordinarily been malignant and oppressive.”
“The assessment marked a first step toward bigotry, differing from the ‘inquisition…in degree,’ and would make Virginia no longer the asylum for the persecuted.”
“Good and useful citizens would be driven from the state or deterred from coming there by a religious tax.”
“Religious strife and violence would be encouraged by laws touching religion.”
“The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity…. The bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachment of error.”
“An attempt to enforce a religious assessment obnoxious to many citizens would weaken respect for law and order generally.”
“Evidence was strong that a majority of the people opposed the assessment.”
“Because, finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights…. Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish trial by jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary powers of the State, may that they may despoil us of our very right to suffrage and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary assembly: or we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration.”

The Bill did not pass and a year later, Jefferson’s Statute for Religious freedom passed into law. We must remain vigilant against trespasses against the 1^st Amendment. It is the cornerstone of why religiosity thrives in America. It is the absence of state control in public spaces that permits churches, and mosques and synagogues and tabernacles and temples to spread and flourish across this country.

Federal Policing in the Era of a Rogue President

Note: I originally posted this essay on my Substack newsletter Bumpass Warbler. Given the continued use of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to conduct criminal investigations of individuals named by the White House this essay is worth reposting. This week DHS and DOJ confirmed that they have undertaken multiple criminal investigations against Christopher Krebs, who was named in an earlier Trump executive order. The have crossed a line. Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi have become Trump’s henchmen, and the FBI and DHS the modern equivalent to Stalin’s NKVD. This is not an exercise in hyperbole, their actions constitute the first steps down a slippery slope to a police state. End Note.

Over three decades in law enforcement I saw how policing at the local, state, and federal levels changed, some of it not for the better. Today, American law enforcement sits at an inflection point, our guiding North Star under attack. It is not under siege from al-Qaida, or the Islamic State, or criminal gangs like MS-13, it is under threat from within, from a rogue president.

Our constitutional system of separation of powers and the rule of law is degraded daily, like habitat loss in the Amazon Rain Forest, as the White House continues its relentless bulldozing of norms. Habitat loss is notoriously difficult if not impossible to restore fully. Judges are maligned and threatened with impeachment, court orders disobeyed, violations of due process encouraged, speech of foreign students criminalized, constant Habeas Corpus hide and seek games, criminal investigations ordered by the White House, law firm shake downs, arrests and detentions of migrants and valid visa holder without probable cause, harassment of persons of middle eastern origin at points of entry into the United States. That’s just a sample.

While we think of constitutional crises as being played out in iconic court battles and Supreme Court hearings, the men and women in law enforcement, in particular federal agents, find themselves in the middle of this chaos every day, just trying to do their jobs. Trump and his appointees wanting scalps and press events on one side, and their conscience and oaths to defend and protect the Constitution on the other side. This is where the real battle is being waged for the heart and soul of federal law enforcement. In stark terms, are we teetering toward a federal police state?

We’re supposed to be on the side of democracy and the rule of law, were that thin blue line dividing law and constitutional order from chaos…and autocracy. That blue line is not some random color but is deeply symbolic as to the purpose and place of policing in a civil society. We don’t always get it right, and many times the police and federal agents were on the wrong side of history, but the aspiration, the idea was there.

When deciding on a uniform design for London’s newly established Metropolitan Police Department Robert Peel chose blue. The army wore red he reasoned, and not wanting the police to think of themselves as an army, and Londoners not see the police as military occupiers, he wisely decided on blue uniforms.

America followed this path in the 1850s when metropolitan police departments began to outfit their officers in uniforms, starting with the NYPD. Blue was the universal color chosen. Today we accept uniformed officers, but in the mid 19^th century, police uniforms were controversial, hotly debated, as was arming them. Perhaps a legacy of America’s long-standing antipathy to standing armies. Before guns, wooden clubs were the issued weapon along with a leather badge. For those that like the historical trivia of things, longer clubs were for night shifts, hence the night stick, shorter clubs were for day shifts.

As the 19^th century progressed, so did the size, power, and responsibilities of urban police departments. Federal law enforcement as we know it today practically non-existent. Police precinct buildings became overnight shelters for the homeless, soup kitchens for the hungry. Police departments conducted inspections on building boilers and were sanitation inspectors for urban slaughterhouses as well.

From the mid-19^th century, police officers who died in the line of duty increasingly began to be afforded military style funerals. Conspicuous spectacles meant to send a message to the policed, and to the police officer on the beat. Today’s police funerals were 19^th century inventions.

In time, near the end of the 19^th century, the police were transformed into ‘guardians,’ an acknowledgement of their powerful roll in party politics and political patronage, but also in response to white middle-class urban denizens who demanded heavy handed policing to assuage their fears of crime, disease, and immorality attributed to increasing numbers of foreign migrants.

The 20^th century brought police reforms and a growth in the size and number of federal law enforcement agencies. Paramilitary state police organizations were founded. Policing became more professionalized, union and advocacy groups matured. In the 1980s high-capacity pistols replaced six shot revolvers….and the number of average number of bullets being fired in a shooting went from 6 to dozens.

9/11 changed America and policing. Many police departments started looking like military units as military surplus gear was handed out like candy. Tactical uniforms once reserved for special teams, became the rage. Military style body armor, tactical gear adorned police officers like Christmas tree ornaments, long guns slung from bodies, armored vehicles patrolled streets. With military style uniforms and gear the mindset changed, I observed. This change also seeped into federal law enforcement agencies as well. Robert Peel was right.

As we witnessed recently, federal agents in Homeland Security rounded up and deported over 200 hundred alleged Venezuelan gang members using a late 18th century Act meant to be invoked in case of war. The men’s due process rights were ignored, they were swiftly deported to a foreign prison despite a federal court order to stop. The agents knowingly, and apparently willfully, ignored the constitutional right’s of these men, on the orders of one man: Donald Trump. In effect, acting like Trump’s personal army at war.

It’s not just about Homeland Security or FBI agents; it’s about federal law enforcement in general. When folks think about federal law enforcement, the FBI comes to mind (mostly because of their PR machine and TV and movie brand), but every federal department has its own law enforcement agency. About two dozen in all. They conduct criminal investigation specific to their department’s statutory functions. For instance, Medicaid fraud for HHS and tax fraud for the IRS or Visa Fraud for the State Department. They too will eventually (if not already) be tasked to conduct politically driven criminal investigations to punish and discipline Trump’s political opponents.

To my fellow officers and agents, you must decide whether you will obey illegal orders given by a president you may like and voted for. Should you obey his illegal orders now, what happens when a new president you don’t like makes similar illegal demands targeting his or her alleged enemies? That’s why we have the rule of law, not men or women. You must decide when and how you will say ‘enough’ to being muscle for party politicians in high places. It’s not our damn job to be a president’s lawless private army.

When you are asked to draw up arrest lists and swear to arrest warrants using demonstrably false statements because a president told you to — not because they committed any crimes — you’re no longer officers of the law. In fact, as you know, you open yourself up to Bivens lawsuits. Financial ruin, bankruptcy, just like the pillow guy. We are supposed to be a bulwark against injustice, not its facilitator. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a police state.

Finally, let Jan 6 should be a warning to all. Trump organized, fired up, and sent a mob to the Capitol building. You know, not many people bring a noose to a rally unless it’s a lynch mob. They attacked our fellow federal officers. Scores were injured, crushed, beaten, one tased into cardiac arrest. One officer died that evening; several took their lives shortly afterward. Then Trump, in one of his first acts of his second term, pardoned everyone convicted of assaulting and brutalizing our brothers and sisters. His actions speak loudly. He isn’t pro-police; he sees you and I as pawns, and like any chess player will sacrifice them for the King.

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of April 18, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Are we there yet? Have we arrived at a constitutional crisis?

This week’s actions and reporting primarily focused on two stories. The first centers on the court actions surrounding the illegal deportation of Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Mr. Garcia is legally permitted to remain the the U.S. but was nonetheless wrongly detained and deported to the El Salvadoran super max prison. The U.S. Supreme Court directed the administration to ‘facilitate’ his return. ‘Facilitate’ is a pretty poor choice. What does making it easier even mean in the context of a court order? It’s like facilitating your child to eat broccoli.

Nevertheless. after the Supreme Court’s ruling, government lawyers balked on providing a lower court judges request for information on the government’s plans to return Garcia and his status. The following day or so, during a visit by the El Salvadoran President Bukele to the White House on April 24, Bukele stated he won’t return the Garcia. This all played out before TV cameras during a press event with Buckle. Trump directed a reporter’s question regarding Garcia and the Supreme Court ruling to Attorney General Bondi, who said was it was up to the El Salvadorian President. Taking his cue, Buckle said he didn’t have the power to release Garcia. Sitting to his left was Trump, who smirked like the woman in the Mona Lisa. I was shocked, shocked, given that Buckle was dressed worse than Zelenskyy, he would have been badgered, attacked, and humiliated.

Given the governments failure to adhere to instructions, the judge stated that there is “probable cause” that the government is in criminal contempt of the court. That is serious. Here is the thing however. Should the judge impose a penalty, for instance sending someone to jail, the US Marshal Service would be the ones making the arrest. The Marshals work for the Department of Justice and the Attorney General. Basically, the courts can’t really enforce their rulings. It needs the Executive Department in general, and in particular the Department of Justice regarding criminal matters, to enforce the rulings.

That is the crux of a constitutional crisis we now faces. James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers that the Constitution was a parchment barrier, highlighting is takes acts of good faith for the constitution to survive. If the President and Executive Department does not act in good faith, then the barrier is broken.

The second issue is the battle between Harvard and Trump and his administration regarding funding pauses to the university and a list of demands in how the university operates. The good news is that Harvard pushed back at Trump. This is a pivot point. Below is a copy of the letter. The government now claims the letter was sent in error. Hmmm.

Dr. Alan M. Garber President
Harvard University Office of the President Massachusetts Hall Cambridge, MA 02138

Penny Pritzker
Lead Member, Harvard Corporation Harvard Corporation
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Dr. Garber:

April 11, 2025

The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture.

Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government.

If acceptable to Harvard, this document will constitute an agreement in principle, which the parties will work in good faith to translate into a more thorough, binding settlement agreement. As you will see, this letter incorporates and supersedes the terms of the federal government’s prior letter of April 3, 2025.

● Governance and leadership reforms. By August 2025, Harvard must make meaningful governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter, including: fostering clear lines of authority and accountability; empowering tenured professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and committed to the changes indicated in this letter; reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty; reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship; and reducing forms of

governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization that interfere with the possibility of the reforms indicated in this letter.

● Merit-Based Hiring Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among faculty, staff, and leadership. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All existing and prospective faculty shall be reviewed for plagiarism and Harvard’s plagiarism policy consistently enforced. All hiring and related data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
● Merit-Based Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests—during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. During this same period, the dean of admissions for each program or school must sign a public statement after each admissions cycle certifying that these rules have been upheld.
● International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism. Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. As above, these reforms must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes; comprehensive throughout all of Harvard’s programs; and, during the reform period, shared with the federal government for audit, shared on a non-individualized basis with the public, and certified by deans of admissions.
● Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and

the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

● Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.

o The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.

o The report of the external party shall include information as to individual faculty members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard’s rules following October 7, and the University and federal government will cooperate to determine appropriate sanctions for those faculty members within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.

o The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025 and reforms undertaken to repair the problems. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to make repairs every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

● Discontinuation of DEI. The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government; and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal government that these reforms are durable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August

2025, the University must submit to the government a report—certified for accuracy—that confirms these reforms.

● Student Discipline Reform and Accountability. Harvard must immediately reform its student discipline policies and procedures so as to swiftly and transparently enforce its existing disciplinary policies with consistency and impartiality, and without double standards based on identity or ideology. Where those policies are insufficient to prevent the disruption of scholarship, classroom learning and teaching, or other aspects of normal campus life, Harvard must develop and implement disciplinary policies sufficient to prevent those disruptions. This includes but is not limited to the following:

o Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions or deplatforming, including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption or deplatforming; robust enforcement and reinstatement of existing time, place, and manner rules on campus, including ordering the Harvard police to stop incidents that violate time, place, and manner rules when necessary; a disciplinary process housed in one body that is accountable to Harvard’s president or other capstone official; and removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement, including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.

o Harvard must adopt a new policy on student groups or clubs that forbids the recognition and funding of, or provision of accommodations to, any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment; invites non-students onto campus who regularly violate campus rules; or acts as a front for a student club that has been banned from campus. The leaders or organizers of recognized and unrecognized student groups that violate these policies must be held accountable as a matter of student discipline and made ineligible to serve as officers in other recognized student organizations. In the future, funding decisions for student groups or clubs must be made exclusively by a body of University faculty accountable to senior University leadership. In particular, Harvard must end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduates Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4 Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild, and discipline and render ineligible the officers and active members of those student organizations.

o Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.

o Harvard must investigate and carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years, including the Harvard Business School protest of October 2023, the University Hall sit-in of November 2023, and the spring encampment of 2024. This must include permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli

Harvard Business School student, and suspending students involved in occupying university buildings, as warranted by the facts of individual cases.

o The Harvard president and police chief must publicly clarify that the Harvard University Police Department will enforce University rules and the law. Harvard must also commit to cooperating in good faith with law enforcement.

● Whistleblower Reporting and Protections. The University must immediately establish procedures by which any Harvard affiliate can report noncompliance with the reforms detailed in this letter to both university leadership and the federal government. Any such reporter shall be fully protected from any adverse actions for so reporting.
● Transparency and Monitoring. The University shall make organizational changes to ensure full transparency and cooperation with all federal regulators. No later than June 30, 2025, and every quarter thereafter during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028, the University shall submit to the federal government a report—certified for accuracy—that documents its progress on the implementation of the reforms detailed in this letter. The University must also, to the satisfaction of the federal government, disclose the source and purpose of all foreign funds; cooperate with the federal government in a forensic audit of foreign funding sources and uses, including how that money was used by Harvard, its agents, and, to the extent available, third parties acting on Harvard’s campus; report all requested immigration and related information to the United States Department of Homeland Security; and comply with all requirements relating to the SEVIS system.We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its original mission of innovative research and academic excellence.

page5image1661371632

You can review the cumulative list of democratic backsliding and erosion by clicking on the menu button or Benchmarks button above. Til next week.

Tom’s Report on the State of Americas Democratic Health

As of April 11, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

The chaos and mayhem continue. While everyone was glued to the self-inflicted and manufactured tariff crises, democratic erosion and backsliding continued.

Of note this week were two Supreme Court’s rulings, one regarding a challenge to the government’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act and the other on returning a man wrongly deported to an El Salvadoran prison (also related to the the Alien Enemies Act), and two unprecedented executive orders directing the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland security to coordinate investigations on two former first term Trump administration appointees.

Trump added comedian Bill Maher to his trophy wall.

Attacks on academia, science, and books/ideas continued.

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the use of using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans associated with a criminal gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by, guess who, Trump. Incredibly, the Court basically held that government actions under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review. The court sidestepped the constitutionality of using the Act in peacetime. The following is a summation of the ruling:

The plaintiffs according to the Court used the wrong argument. The plaintiffs challenged the government’s “interpretation” of the Alien Enemies Act. Citing a 1948 case, the Court stated that Alien Enemies Act is largely not subject to judicial review, or as they wrote, “preclude[s] judicial review.
The plaintiffs should have used the Write of Habeas Corpus, which they did initially, but changed their argument.
The Court also removed the US District Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement. In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and paragon of justice.
The Court did say that detainees must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.”

The Court also issued a separate ruling directing the government to return a man improperly deported to an El Salvadoran prison be returned. However, the Court’s language in the ruling was so poorly and imprecisely worded giving the government wiggle room, which apparently they exploited because the following day, at a lower court hearing, the government refused to comply with lower court judge’s order to update the court on the government’s plans to return the man. The government’s lawyer stating he had no information to relay to the court. Can’t make this stuff up.

In an unprecedented and grim move, Trump signed two executive orders directing criminal investigation into two former political appointees from his first term, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. The two did not support publicly support Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen and asserted that there were not indications that the election was stolen. This is meant to silence every federal employee and every Trump appointee.

You can go to menu or benchmarks above to see the full cumulative list of benchmarks being tracked.

Former CISA Chief Chris Krebs targeted for Possible Criminal Prosecution in Trump Executive Order

In a significant and dangerous escalation of the use of criminal investigations to punish and intimidate, the former head of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Chris Krebs was targeted for possible criminal prosecution in an executive order signed today by Trump. The executive order directed that the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security to “take all appropriate action to review Krebs.” Many will recall that Krebs refused to support Trump’s claim of electronic tampering of voter systems or talliers. He was head of CISA during Trump’s first term in office and oversaw the detection and mitigation of any cyber security threats to voting systems during the 2016 presidential election, which Trump lost.

The executive order states in part: “I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with any other agency head, to take all appropriate action to review Krebs’ activities as a Government employee, including his leadership of CISA. This review should identify any instances where Krebs’ conduct appears to have been contrary to suitability standards for Federal employees, involved the unauthorized dissemination of classified information, or contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship).” I presume “all appropriate action” includes criminal investigations and prosecutions.

This represents a reckless and perilous escalation of the use of the Department of Justice and other federal law enforcement agencies to punish those that Trump deems disloyal. Call, write, email your representatives. Write the Supreme Court Justices, let them know your thoughts.

Legal Challenges to Alien Enemies Act of 1798 Not Subject to Judicial Review Supreme Court Rules

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans associated with a criminal gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by, guess who, Trump. Incredibly, the Court basically held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review. Let me say that again, the Court held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review. Below is a summary of the key points and below that the Court’s ruling:

The plaintiffs according to the Court used the wrong argument. The plaintiffs challenged the government’s “interpretation” of the Alien Enemies Act. Citing a 1948 case, the Court stated that Alien Enemies Act is largely not subject to judicial review, or as they wrote, “preclude[s] judicial review.
Instead, the plaintiffs should have used the Writ of Habeas Corpus (see earlier blog post on Habeas Corpus), which they did initially, but changed their argument, according to the Court.
The Court also removed the US District Court, Washington DC, from jurisdiction to hear the case. Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement. Note not arrest, but confinement. In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and equity and liberal jurisprudence.
The Court did say that detainees detention must have some ‘judicial review’ and must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.”

Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931 _________________

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

PER CURIAM.

This matter concerns the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. 10030 (2025). The President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a pro- visionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation. Minute Order on Motion To Certify Class in No. 25−cv−00766. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981).

We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of re- movable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “ ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humph- rey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). And “immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.” Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 67 (1968); see, e.g., Nance, 597 U. S., at 167 (explaining that a capital pris- oner may seek “to overturn his death sentence” in habeas by “analog[y]” to seeking release); In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242, 254, 259 (1894). For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detain- ees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice af- ter the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a rea- sonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay.

The application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. The March 15, 2025 minute orders granting a temporary restraining order and March 28, 2025 extension of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 1:25-cv-766, are vacated.

It is so ordered.

David H. Rogers in His Own Words: Candidate for Louisa County Board of Supervisor.

Democracy is the cornerstone of our Republic. It is just as important to focus on local elections as it is national elections. Sometimes, however, local elections get swept up and into national debates and they become sideshows, even though our local elected officials make decisions that impact our lives daily. To promote local discourse, I intend to highlight persons running in local races, to let them, in their own words, make their case for your vote.

I recently asked David Rogers if he would be willing to answer three questions about his run for the Mineral seat of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors. He agreed. I am pleased to present to you David’s responses to the questions below.

Mr. Rogers is running to replace Duane Adams, who is also the current Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Adams term expires December 31 of this year.

David H. Rogers, Candidate for the Mineral Seat of the Louisa Board of Supervisors

What motivates you to run for the Mineral seat of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors?

First let me say what does not motivate me to run. I am not running because I need something else to do. I am not running because I need to get my name out so I can run for another office. I am not running because I am not happy with what I already do a s a Church Insurance Agent.

I am motivated to run because we have not had good representation with our current board member. We cannot keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. I believe that if people want change, then someone must stand up and fight for it. I would like to be that someone.

I am motivated to run because under the present board, projects have been voted upon that benefit developers and not the people. In negotiating contracts with businesses, we should have a give and take relationship with the Mineral/Louisa residents coming out on the positive end.

I am motivated to run because under the current board member, there is no transparency. The constituents find out about an issue after the fact. This must stop. When Board members move on to other aspirations, we will still be here struggling with the aftermath of bad decisions for many years if we don’t do something now.

What makes you the best candidate for the Mineral seat?

I am the best candidate for the Mineral seat because I realize, “it is not about me.” It is about the people. I have no ulterior motives for running except to help the people of Mineral and Louisa at large. Although I did not grow up in Louisa, I spent my summers here with my grandparents. My family has owned land here for about 130 years. I know that the decisions I make will affect many families including my own.

I CARE about the people in Mineral. I have gotten word that there are homeless people in our Louisa County. This may not be something we want to admit, but it is true. There are groups that are seeking to help these families. There was a ruling that says if churches opened their doors to those who found themselves homeless, the churches could be fined. It is unconscionable to even think about imposing a fine on churches for opening their doors in the freezing cold to those who have found themselves homeless. It is bad enough that our neighbors have had problems resulting in loss of shelter. To have them risk freezing to death is savage. When did we lose our humanity? Whoever even thought to write that down or even think that we could fine a church for doing what the church is called to do, needs a “humanity check”. We need to assist as much as possible.

I believe I must be transparent and keep the people informed. We found out, after the fact, that data centers would be coming to the Mineral/Louisa area. I also noticed that zones in the town of Mineral were changing from commercial to residential to commercial on a whim. Who did this benefit? The developers. The people may not have agreed with this.

A proposal was made for a truck stop to be developed in the Cuckoo district. If it had not been for the people of Cuckoo, coming out twice in full force in the rain after their private meetings, it may have passed. A truck stop would have brought more crime to our county, in the form of drug and human trafficking along with prostitution.

Most of all, I want to hear what the people need and want so I can include them in making the best decisions for all. Many of the issues I mentioned above were shot through before the people got a chance to digest them. It is my goal to always put the people first. That means having regular communication using the best means possible to keep the people informed. Communication with my neighbors will be of the utmost importance to me.

What challenges will Mineral in particular, and Louisa County in general, face in the next three to five years? How would you address them?

Problems with our roads

Many of our roads are receiving traffic they were not built to handle. I am speaking of the eighteen-wheeler tractor trailers. These heavy trucks travel on the curving roads and chew up the road shoulders. It is hard to see around the curves so crossing the road to get to a mailbox is unsafe for our citizens, especially the elderly. Trucks also present a safety issue while traveling on these single lane narrow roads. Some roads were made for this type of traffic but there are no signs to encourage trucks to use them. This will only get worse as our population increases. Maintenance is also an issue. Strict guidelines will need to be followed to keep large trucks on the appropriate roads when driving through our locality.

There is also a need to study traffic signals at the busy intersections to keep the traffic flowing, especially around the busy hours of the day.

Problems with data centers

The present Board of Supervisors have already voted to have data centers come to our county. These centers take up a lot of resources like land, water and electrical power. This will result in brown outs and black outs because of the increased stress on our old power grids. There have been no plans to upgrade the electrical grids in the Louisa area. I am told that upgrades have not been done since the 1970’s when the power plant was built. Based on our population and current usage, the area would not be able to sustain added pull on our old system. We may have put the cart before the horse and need to take a side-step before moving forward with like projects. Truth be told, better planning could remedy this.

As mentioned, the roads will need to be upgraded to handle the heavy truck traffic during the construction of the data centers. The construction will take several years.

Keeping Louisa balanced between rural and metropolitan

I know many of the residents in Louisa have come here because they like the rural atmosphere. This is something I want to preserve and in my discussions with many of my neighbors, they feel the same way. Are we following the standards that would keep Mineral/Louisa rural? We need to revisit these standards before we become too metropolitan. Sustained growth is good, but we must do it in a way that we do not take away our rural lifestyle.

Having adequate housing to support our residents

We need to negotiate with developers to build housing that is affordable. The housing needs to be affordable for people we want to attract to our area like new teachers, just out of college, new emergency personnel, and other recent college graduates. We are already lacking in these areas.

Having businesses to support living in Mineral/Louisa

We need to attract businesses that will train and employ the people in Mineral/Louisa. Louisa County High School has many excellent programs that train our students. We need businesses to capitalize on their career training if so desired, they do not have to leave home.

Having adequate resources to keep Mineral/Louisa safe for all its residents

Louisa has a growing elderly population. We need an Urgent Care Center in the heart of Louisa (not close to the county borders) that all our county people, especially our elderly, can reach quickly. The center could have medical personnel to initiate treatment and to be able to stabilize a person in an emergency and to prepare them for transport. It could also provide preventive care and medical education. Having after-hours care would be of benefit because you know children don’t get sick until after dark.

These are just a few things. Please know that I am always open to discussion about any concerns of the people in Mineral/Louisa. I am David H. Rogers. I can be reached at rogersdh97@gmail.com.

“Hands Off” Louisa, Virginia Rally

As part of nation-wide Hands Off protests and rallies, residents of Louisa, Virginia, assembled at the Court House steps this Saturday to add their voices to a growing chorus across America, and the world, excoriating Trump’s attacks on democracy.

Organized by the Louisa County Democratic Party, the rally was one of the largest gatherings, as I understand it, in memory. The diverse and enthusiastic participants focused on wide ranging issues: Constitutional rights, Education, Healthcare, Human and Civil Rights, Immigration, Justice, LGBTQ rights, Social Security, and Veteran Services. This wasn’t a one issue rally.

Speeches, songs, and chants filled the Court Houses front steps from noon to two. Homemade signs expressed patriotism and anger. A number of speakers derided Trump’s attacks on democracy and also on our congressional district’s representative John McGuire (R) lack of honesty and integrity in the face of constituent questions.

Speakers repeatedly called to protect social security, medicare, and medicaid –which assists Americas most vulnerable populations — from being cut to fund trillions in taxes cuts for the millionaire class. Boos and catcalls followed mentions of Trump’s tariffs. One speaker addressed the serious threats to veterans and their health services because of massive layoffs and program cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Trump, Musk, and McGuire the villains of the day.

A number of participants volunteered to speak to the assembled crowd. One told of his still living mom’s experiences in Nazi occupied France — she was 11 when they invaded — and her fear that America is heading towards fascism. I can relate to that as my mom and her family lived under Nazis occupation as well. She sees parallels today.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: