The Rule Of Law Is Giving Way To The Rule Of Trump.
A president with nothing to lose.
“We don’t guarantee justice, we provide an opportunity for it under the rules.”
Never have I heard a more honest, blunt assessment of the American judicial system than in the courtroom of Judge G. Sarsfield Ford, a former Connecticut Superior Court judge who was overseeing a capital felony murder case when he made the observation. Nevertheless, our court system is the one place people in this country look to for justice when all else fails. When they are forced to plead their case before a judge or jury.
Courtrooms are a place where the rules always apply and apply equally to everyone. Lawyers know and follow the rules or face consequences to their own careers. Win or lose, litigants accept judgements as final once all appeals are exhausted.
But in an America led by Donald Trump the courts are just another venue to play the same games he has played throughout his life; challenging the rules, using the conventions others follow - laws and norms - against anyone who stands in the way. In recent weeks, the United States Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice Department appear to be going along. At the highest levels, the courts are now just one more place to make disingenuous arguments, delay decisions on important issues, and create an executive branch free of accountability.
When we finally exit the Trump era, an enduring question will be; why were so many people who knew better willing to sacrifice their reputations and self respect for someone who did not?
In the Trump era the Supreme Court has sent the issue of abortion rights back to the states creating a patch work of conflicting laws. The Court has granted broad immunity to the sitting president for his actions while in office. In June, the Court put a stop to the use of nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts, a tool used by lower court judges to halt a law or policy found to be unconstitutional.
In each case justices appointed by President Trump were in the majority. In each case the majority opinion rested on originalist legal philosophy that in some instances reached back before the founding of the country. In each case anyone with a glib understanding of the law, but a solid grasp of the meaning of justice would have questions about the reasoning behind the decisions.
Presidents of both parties have complained about the use of nationwide injunctions as a means to check their power. In the United States, checks on power are part of the system and meant to ensure no one branch of government, or any single leader has too much power. While annoying to the executive, they are part of the system.
Writing for the majority in the injunction case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett weaved through centuries of legal precedent and theory to arrive at her conclusion. As if her arguments did not go far enough, her conservative colleagues on the court offered their own concurring opinions, but none of the argument got to the main issue of justice at the center of the case:
If a lower court finds a law or policy to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution how can that finding be applied only in the federal judicial district where the decision is made? The Constitution is the governing document of the entire country and is not meant to be applied differently in different states or even smaller federal judicial districts.
The crisis of logic is also evident in the presidential immunity decision and the abortion decision. How can it be that the president, who takes an oath to uphold the law, is immune from the law? How can it be that the life and death question of abortion can be decided on a state by state basis?
In these high profile cases and others the majority on the Court seems to be doing what they were hired to do; justify a conservative political agenda and give it the color of law.
In 2019, President Trump had a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to announce he had opened an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump did not care if there was an actual investigation, but he wanted to be able to say publicly, “Biden and his son are under investigation for corruption.” Such a public statement would have been a political thing of value for Trump. It would have the color of a legal proceeding. Zelenskyy refused and his country has paid the price.
A year later, Trump wanted someone - anyone - in the U.S. Justice Department to say publicly that the 2020 election was corrupt so that he and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill could use that false declaration as reason to delay the certification of the presidential vote allowing Trump to remain in office. No one in the Justice Department would go along.
This is how Trump, and the lawyers and judges he seeks to place around him, see justice in the United States. Not as a final arbiter of disputes, but as a system to be manipulated and rigged in their favor. Trump lawyers are more than comfortable making arguments they know to be specious under the premise that lawyers are hired to make arguments and some arguments are better than others.
At the end of June, a fifteen year veteran of the Justice Department filed a whistleblower complaint against Emil Bove, who served as a defense lawyer for President Trump and is now the principal associate attorney general in the Justice Department. Bove has been nominated by Trump to be a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which serves Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands. The Senate is considering his nomination. The whistleblower complaint was made public just before the hearing on Bove’s selection.
The complaintant, Erez Reuveni, had been serving in the leadership of the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation, until he was fired in April for his handling of the case of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. Reuveni was the attorney who admitted in court that Abrego-Garcia had been mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a previous court order saying that was the one place he should never be sent.
During the course of his involvement in the case, Reuveni also rebuffed directions from his superiors to refer to Abrego-Garcia in court as a “terrorist.” He refused because he said there was no evidence to back up the claim. Here again is an example of the Trump administration believing the purpose of court is argument - not truthful or merit based argument.
In his complaint, Reuveni specifically accuses Bove of telling a meeting of top Justice Department lawyers that if a judge ordered the administration’s deportation flights to be halted, the court order would have to be ignored. The complaint provides further evidence to prove that is exactly what the administration did. As a result, more than 200 men - mostly Venezuelan citizens - are being held at a prison meant to hold terrorists in El Salvador. They were sent there by this country without any opportunity to defend themselves in a series of events the U.S. Supreme Court says must be remedied.
Bove denies the allegations in the complaint filed by Reuveni, but his denial does not ring true for a number of reasons.
Reuveni has no incentive to tarnish his long-standing reputation as a litigant by making false public claims about Bove that he cannot back up.
Reuveni’s claims are very specific and highly detailed. This is not a casual accusation.
Reuveni’s claims are supported by events that unfolded in public and are known to all.
Bove’s denials are part of a pattern of behavior inside the world of Donald Trump where any accusation is met first with denial and then an attempt to blame whatever the controversy happens to be on someone else.
It is simply no longer plausible to believe that every time Trump or one his subordinates is accused of wrong-doing someone else is to blame.
Because Reuveni conducted himself in court in accordance with rules of professional conduct he was described by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller as a “saboteur” and by Attorney General Pam Bondi as an example of a DOJ attorney who failed to “zealously advocate” for his client. Bondi’s public remarks send a clear signal to other DOJ lawyers that if they follow Reuveni’s example they will lose their jobs.
The DOJ’s clean up of the mess created by the wrongful deportation of Abrego-Garcia continues and events surrounding the case raise serious questions about the meaning of justice under the Trump administration.
Unwilling to admit that it made a mistake, and unwilling to comply with court orders demanding that Abrego-Garcia be returned to this country, the DOJ launched a post deportation investigation into Abrego-Garcia with the intent of charging him with a crime and returning him to the U.S. to stand trial. The administration wants us to believe that Abrego-Garcia is such a threat to the people of the United States that he should be returned from an effective life sentence* in a Salvadoran prison to stand trial for crimes he never stood accused of while he was living in this country.
*(Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said earlier this year that as far as she is concerned, those deported to El Salvador by the U.S. should stay in prison for the rest of their lives. This despite the fact that we don’t know if any of them have committed crimes worthy of a life sentence).
Abrego-Garcia was indicted at the beginning of June on charges of human trafficking. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. At the end of June it was reported that a key witness against him has been told he will not be deported - for at least one year - if he testifies against Abrego-Garcia in court. The witness has been granted early release from prison while he awaits his opportunity to testify.
The rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, the discipline against attorneys in the Justice Department who won’t “zealously” tell lies in court on behalf of the administration, and the kangaroo court nature of the case against Abrego-Garcia all point to a justice system in the U.S. that is being corrupted by the current administration. Surprisingly, there are trained lawyers willing to go along with it all. Willing to make the arguments necessary to give President Trump un-checked power over crime and punishment.
The most dangerous aspect of it all is presented by the combination of presidential immunity and the pardon power. Theoretically, Trump is immune from prosecution for nearly any criminal act he commits in the performance of his job. (A fact that seems so absurd it’s difficult to even write the words). As president he also has absolute pardon power and he has shown he is more than willing to use that power to be the ultimate arbiter of which laws need to be enforced and which ones can be ignored.
Within this structure President Trump feels comfortable with pushing the boundaries of the law himself and asking others to do so on his behalf. It is unlikely that the Trump staffed Justice Department will charge any members of the administration acting at the president’s direction with a federal crime, but even if that happened, Trump could and would use his pardon power to end the case.
If on the other hand, you are an attorney following the norms of ethical conduct within the Trump Justice Department, or someone the administration wants to make an example of, the full force of DOJ will be used against you.
The first six months of the second Trump administration have tested boundaries. It is clear Trump feels he has nothing to lose in what should be - according to the law - his final term. Those who are concerned about the direction of country have noted the complicity of the Republican controlled Congress in Trump’s over-reach, but they have been heartened by the role the court’s have played in keeping the president in check. Now that means of balance has been weakened and President Trump is in the strongest position yet to dispense justice and make policy based on his whims without regard to facts, the law, or the Constitution.
~
Inflection Point
July 8, 2025