Share New Jersey Insight

On Saturday evening in Washington, DC, an attempted attack occurred during a gathering of the Nation’s leaders and members of the national press corps. One U.S. Secret Service officer sustained a gunshot, but his bulletproof gear protected him. No other injuries were reported. The President, the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and members of the press were safe.

Federal law enforcement have detained the perpetrator and will charge him with firearms offenses and attacking a federal officer, with more charges likely to follow. The investigation remains ongoing. But on Sunday morning, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche conveyed that the President and members of his Administration were likely the targets. By Sunday evening, the press reported that the perpetrator left a note exhibiting his anger with the Administration.

The event raised the troubling prospect that the attacker likely intended to carry out political violence. Such acts have occurred much too frequently just in the past few years.1 These acts are not only tragic and horrific, but they also have an impact far beyond the immediate victims. Like hate crimes, political violence ripples through entire communities. It risks destabilizing our democratic institutions and devolving our political disputes into widespread violent confrontations. Instead of the peaceful resolution of conflicts, we would be left with fear and the power of might over right.

Subscribe now

Unfortunately, our history is replete with examples of political violence. The frequency as of late, however, should ring the alarm. Many policymakers are exploring ways to address the uptick. Some, like the governor of Utah and the former governor of New Jersey, emphasized civil discourse during their tenures and promoted how to “disagree better.” Others are exploring legislation, including increasing criminal penalties.

For example, a bipartisan bill to criminalize political violence is pending in the New Jersey Legislature. If an individual commits or attempts to commit an underlying crime (like murder, kidnapping, or assault) motivated by political animus, the bill would increase the punishment of that crime. The legislation would also create the Political Violence Review Board, which would review past instances of political violence and issue a report with its findings. It further imposes training on the subject for all law enforcement officers in the state.

It’s a start. These times, however, call for an all-of-the-above approach and a shift in political attitudes. Leaders at all levels ought to be mindful of their audience and their rhetoric, especially language that some may grasp to dehumanize others. Political opponents may be adversaries in the realm of politics, but they need not be enemies. At bottom, how we conduct ourselves, and how we treat others, matter.

Last fall, I moderated a panel at a bar association conference with dispute resolution professionals that focused on practical techniques to have productive dialogue. How can we lower the temperature, for example, and turn contentious conversations into opportunities for progress. From that panel, my favorite takeaway was how to listen better. Not listening in preparation to respond and trounce (like most seasoned litigators are trained to do), but listening for the sake of listening. And learning.

As a Nation, we need to listen more. And disagree better.

Share

Subscribe now

Share New Jersey Insight

Before I go (sort of) off the grid for a family spring break, I wish to comment on one aspect of this week’s blockbuster case at the U.S. Supreme Court on birthright citizenship. I’ve covered much of the background and the question that is now before the Court in my prior post.1

A lot of ink has been spilled covering the matter since the oral arguments on April 1, but today, I want to focus on how the federal government seeks to transform the right of birthright citizenship from an intrinsic part of the mosaic of rights that every American enjoys to one that is something far different.

In Executive Order 14160, which limits birthright citizenship, the President reframes the right of citizenship as a “privilege” that is a “priceless and profound gift.” During oral arguments, the Solicitor General repeated this framing to the Court and argued that “unrestricted birthright citizenship...demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Let that sink in for a moment. As we know, a gift is a mere act of discretion. It is a voluntary transfer of something of value from one person to another that is motivated, perhaps, by a positive feeling or sentiment. The donor has no obligation to convey a gift, and the recipient has no right to receive it.

A right, on the other hand, is something that is due. It is an entitlement. And in the words of Thomas Jefferson, a right can be inalienable.

Here, the federal government wishes to transform the right of birthright citizenship—a right codified at the end of a bloody Civil War to address a horrific injustice—to a mere benefit that can be given on a whim and taken away just as easily.

With the weight of history behind us, and with the view of generations ahead of us, we ought not to countenance such a transformation of a critical precept in our Nation’s charter.

I hope that the Court agrees.

Share

Subscribe now

Share New Jersey Insight

These days, no love is lost between the United States and New Jersey. At every turn, New Jersey is either fortifying itself from federal action or deploying a continual volley of legal actions against the United States.

Under the first Trump Administration, the disputes that occurred then feel quaint—yet still serious—by comparison. For example, over six years ago when I served in state government, I remember working late at my desk when we learned that the United States brought a legal challenge against New Jersey. With a caption that would trigger a bout of anxiety for any state government lawyer (United States of America v. State of New Jersey), the lawsuit centered on the state’s policy that drew clear lines between the roles of state and local law enforcement officers and federal civil immigration agents.1 We successfully persuaded the court to dismiss the lawsuit, by the way.

More disputes mounted back then, some of which involved the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the limitation of the state and local tax deduction, the family separation policy at the border, net neutrality, and the citizenship question on the 2020 Census.

Today, the strife between New Jersey and the federal government feels even more harsh, and no other area exemplifies this than immigration. The conflict over immigration-related policies has had a cascading effect across the state, ranging from incredibly low approval ratings among New Jersey voters for the President (coupled with the wide backlash from elected officials) to communities banding together to support their neighbors in the face of an overzealous immigration enforcement apparatus.

In this post, I’ll highlight the significant (and at times dizzying) array of immigration-related developments in New Jersey—which has the second highest percentage of immigrants in the U.S. I’ll also offer a perspective of what this all might mean in the short to medium term.

1. Legislative Actions

Law making is messy, but the New Jersey Legislature is on record objecting to the immigration policies of the federal government. It passed—and Governor Mikie Sherrill approved—three bills designed to maintain distance between the state and federal immigration enforcement and counteract some of the most egregious behaviors from federal officers.

The first bill codifies into law the Immigrant Trust Directive, a policy that limits the interactions between state and local law enforcement personnel and federal civil immigration enforcement authorities. As I’ve explained before, the legislation “delineates lines of accountability and a policy judgment by elected officials on the best use of law enforcement resources.” Since the federal government has near exclusive authority over immigration, New Jersey can reasonably decide to leave that realm to the federal government, avoid the entanglement, and focus instead on proven public safety measures, like building trust with its residents. The codification of the Directive—which is an executive policy issued by the New Jersey Attorney General—will now have a degree of permanence in the state.

The second bill addresses the routine practice by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents wearing face coverings during enforcement operations. Though not exclusively targeting federal law enforcement, the newly-enacted bill prohibits mask-wearing for any law enforcement officer (local, state, or federal) in New Jersey “while in the performance of the officer’s official duties” and requires them “to provide sufficient identification prior to arresting or detaining an individual.” Though support for the bill fell largely on party lines, one prominent and well-respected Republican lawmaker, State Senator Jon Bramnick, supported the bill and acknowledged that “law enforcement faces risks, but they do not hide behind a mask.” He elaborated:

When officers engage with individuals and communities, the public has a right to know who is exercising governmental authority. Requiring visible identification helps ensure accountability, reduces confusion and fear, and protects both officers and the public.

I agree. In a democracy, the people have a right to hold the actions of their government to account, whether through the ballot box, peaceful protest, or legal action. To do so, identifying the government actor, especially law enforcement agents who are empowered to use physical force when necessary, is fundamental to democratic accountability.

Lastly, the third bill, which is entitled the “Privacy Protection Act,” limits governmental and health care entities from collecting or sharing certain information like a person’s immigration status. Proponents of the bill sought to alleviate the fear that some may have in accessing necessary services. The bill’s sponsors made no secret that the actions of the federal government animated their concern:

“Across the country, the hostile climate this administration has created for immigrants and their families is making individuals hesitant to access essential services, regardless of their legal status,” said Senate Majority Leader [M. Teresa Ruiz]. “No one should be afraid to seek health care or public services because of the personal information they are asked to provide. The ‘Privacy Protection Act’ limits the collection of private information when it is unnecessary to receive services and ensures confidentiality so all New Jerseyans can access the support they need without fear.”

“Protecting people’s personal information is fundamental to maintaining trust in government and ensuring access to necessary services,” said Senator [Andrew Zwicker]. “As federal authorities use government records for their aggressive and mean-spirited immigration enforcement, New Jersey must strengthen our privacy protections to prevent harm.”

Thus, with these three bills now law, New Jersey sends the message that (1) it has no desire to entangle itself with the federal government’s civil immigration enforcement practices; (2) accountability and trust are pivotal for the relationship between the government and the people; and (3) critical services ought to be accessible to all state residents, regardless of their immigration status.

Another bill, which currently remains pending, would go even further in the accountability spectrum. Borrowing a page from my previous note about state-sanctioned mechanisms to hold federal officers accountable, two state lawmakers—Assemblymembers Ravi Bhalla and Katie Brennan—introduced legislation, with unmistakable Jersey attitude, called the “Fight Unlawful Conduct and Keep Individuals and Communities Empowered Act.”2 The bill would create a state cause of action against ICE agents to hold them accountable for federal constitutional violations.3 So far, no movement on the bill, but it’s something to monitor.

Subscribe now

2. Executive Actions

Today, both Governor Sherrill and the Legislature are in lockstep in their shared, profound disagreement with the immigration enforcement policies of the federal government. For Governor Sherrill, though, this was not always the case. As a candidate for office in 2025, and considering the results of the 2024 elections, she had been much more cautious on the topic, declining, for example, to answer questions about immigrant protections. But now, the Governor has abandoned such measured tones with a clarity that minces no words over the conduct of the federal government. She has compared, for instance, the recent conduct of ICE “to the secret police of East Germany” and called it “Trump’s personal militia.”

Beyond legislation and rhetoric, Governor Sherrill has oriented her administration to combat the excesses of federal immigration enforcement. In the aftermath of the federal government’s horrific conduct in Minneapolis and the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, she set up an online portal for New Jersey residents to submit reports of interactions with ICE and allow the state to “hold ICE accountable for their actions, including potential violations of the law.” To that end, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport expressed her willingness, if the circumstances warrant, to pursue criminal charges against federal officers that violate state law.

Through an executive order, Governor Sherrill has also prohibited ICE agents engaged in federal civil immigration enforcement from “entering, accessing, or using nonpublic areas of State property for their operations unless authorized by a judicial warrant.” In response, the U.S. Department of Justice challenged the Governor’s policy in federal court, arguing that the Governor’s actions obstructs enforcement of federal immigration law.

The case remains in its early stages, but I’m generally skeptical of the federal government’s argument. It’s one thing for the state, as a regulator, to impose direct impediments to the functions of the federal government. But it’s another thing entirely when the state, as a property owner, chooses not to permit certain activities—like the staging for federal civil immigration enforcement operations—to occur in the nonpublic spaces of its own property. The state isn’t getting in the way of federal operations; it’s just that the federal government will have to carry out its operations without the use of the state’s nonpublic property. It’s as if your local police department asked you if their officers could hang out in your home for a few hours in preparation for executing a search warrant for your neighbor’s house across the street. As the property owner, you would be well within your rights to deny their request. New Jersey is effectively doing the same and would rather, as mentioned above, separate itself from federal civil immigration enforcement operations, a legitimate policy goal.4

3. Legal Actions

Unsurprisingly, the courts across the country have played a central role in the immigration enforcement debates. It’s no different in New Jersey. In addition to the lawsuit challenging Governor Sherrill’s executive order limiting access to state property, the DOJ is also challenging the policies of four cities in the state—Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken—that align with the state’s Immigrant Trust Directive.5

Conversely, federal judges in New Jersey are increasingly raising the alarm over the conduct of the federal government, whether it be impatience with the number of illegal detentions or DOJ’s own acknowledgement that it violated more than 50 court orders in New Jersey alone.

On top of these disputes are criminal actions against two elected officials. As a result of an incident last year outside of Delaney Hall, a privately-run immigration detention center in Newark, the mayor—Ras Baraka—was arrested on a trespassing charge. Though federal prosecutors ultimately dropped the charge, the U.S. Magistrate Judge harshly reprimanded federal prosecutors for even pursuing the criminal case at all, calling the decision to drop the charge an “embarrassing retraction.” From the same scuffle, a grand jury indicted Congresswoman LaMonica McIver for, among other things, allegedly assaulting a federal officer. That criminal case remains pending.

4. Local Actions

Local communities in New Jersey are not immune to the push and pull of the immigration enforcement debates. School districts across the state have raised fears of immigration enforcement operations in and around their schools. One enforcement operation in proximity of a school in the southern part of the state resulted in fear ricocheting across that community. The state Department of Education has provided guidance to school districts on how to address ICE agents at schools.

I mentioned Delaney Hall above, which had reopened in 2025 and could hold over 1,000 individuals in immigration detention. The backstory behind Mayor Baraka’s arrest that day involved his interest as the chief executive of Newark. He was raising concerns over the lack of inspection at Delaney Hall and other permitting and safety issues, areas that are usually overseen by local governments like Newark.

Even zoning issues are not spared. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security purchased a huge warehouse in Roxbury. Instead of warehousing Amazon packages (consistent with its intended use), the federal government wants to use it to warehouse people instead (not an intended use, to be clear) for immigration detention. In a bipartisan response, both the municipality and the state brought suit challenging the purchase.

So what does this all mean? A few things.

For one, the Trump Administration remains focused, albeit with some modest course corrections, on maintaining its aggressive immigration posture targeting those with and without criminal backgrounds. Second, opponents like New Jersey are using every lever at their disposal to curb the excesses of the federal government’s actions. Evidenced by the large margin of victory that catapulted Governor Sherrill into office, her administration is channeling the frustrations of New Jersey voters through action and imposing some degree of accountability.

Lastly, every action and reaction represent the push and pull on the immigration pendulum. During the Biden Administration, some would say that the pendulum swung too far to one end, representing a lax immigration enforcement apparatus. Now, others would say the pendulum shifted way too far to the opposite end, resulting in an overly harsh immigration enforcement paradigm. I have my views (which you likely gathered in my writings), but the views of the American electorate will count more.

If the developments in New Jersey are any indicator, I suspect that a push on the immigration pendulum may happen this November. And those results may set the stage for a correction in the next few years, with an eye toward—I hope—an equilibrium where immigration enforcement policy rests on constitutional limits, the rule of law, and the dignity of every person.

Share

Subscribe now

Share New Jersey Insight

During my time on the bench as a state trial court judge in New Jersey, I certainly experienced my fair share of litigants and attorneys who would push the bounds of decorum in my courtroom. Some would lob insults and threats at me, and others would walk to the outers edges of what would be permissible. Though temperament and collectedness had to prevail on me as a judge, I knew the importance of acting decisively despite my deep frustration in those moments.

I did not, however, encounter anything close what Judge Zahid Quraishi and his colleagues on the federal bench in New Jersey are enduring recently. In case you missed it, The New York Times reported on Tuesday on the heated colloquy between Judge Quraishi and federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey during a criminal sentencing hearing on Monday.

For context, this hearing occurred a week after Judge Matthew Brann declared the current leadership structure at the U.S. Attorney’s Office to be unlawful.1 Plus, a few weeks ago, Judge Quraishi took the federal government to task after it continued to detain individuals unlawfully. He cited the government’s own admission of violating at least 72 orders in New Jersey alone. And he chastised the government for relying on a legal theory that the courts have roundly rejected.

So naturally, with the credibility of the government virtually gone, Judge Quraishi had questions for the federal prosecutor appearing in his courtroom and whether that prosecutor’s office had the authority to even prosecute the case in light of Judge Brann’s decision.

I highly recommend reading the entire hearing transcript (gift link). After criticizing the government for seemingly fumbling on a plea deal with the criminal defendant, Judge Quraishi zeroed in on the leadership structure of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and how it’s, to put it mildly, problematic under the law. He also asked2 a supervisor from the office to leave his courtroom after that supervisor declined to stay silent despite the judge’s directive.

The judge ended the hearing with an order to the current leadership structure of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to appear in his courtroom for questioning.

I’ll end with Judge Quraishi’s words that are not only chilling, but aptly capture the current state of affairs with the federal government:

[Y]ou have lost the confidence and the trust of this Court. You have lost the confidence and the trust of the New Jersey legal community, and you are losing the trust and confidence of the public.

Stay tuned for a deeper dive on this and more.

Share

Subscribe now

Share New Jersey Insight

A few weeks ago, on behalf of a broad coalition of bar associations from across the country, my stellar legal team and I filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court defending birthright citizenship. You can read more about that advocacy here, and you can read the coalition’s brief here.

Today, I want to focus on not only how we arrived at the footsteps of the Supreme Court, but also explore the consequences if the Court allows the federal government (for the first time in nearly 130 years) to limit which babies born on American soil can acquire citizenship. The demographic profile of New Jersey provides a stark example of those consequences. Bottom line: They would be profound.

1. The Early Campaign to Limit Birthright Citizenship.

To understand the current controversy, we should start at the beginning. About 160 years ago, the Nation had just fought a bloody civil war, and a whole population of formerly enslaved persons were entering an era where the country, through the passage and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, discarded the horrific institution of slavery. Yet despite this new dawn and a period of reconstruction, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), remained the law of the land. In Dred Scott, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Black person, whether enslaved, formerly enslaved, or never enslaved, could not be an American citizen - ever.

President Abraham Lincoln rejected the notion. And so did Congress. After the Civil War ended, it passed the the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Though Congress passed a law, a risk remained that the law could be struck down as unconstitutional under Dred Scott or, alternatively, that a future Congress would change the law. Congress, and the Nation, ultimately adopted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The operative portion of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is pithy and plain: “All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

During Congressional debates, members of Congress argued whether the Amendment would reach beyond the formerly enslaved and their children, and apply to others. The debates illustrated an understanding that the Amendment would in fact apply to those other categories such as Chinese migrants and “gypsies,” groups that were heavily despised. One senator remarked, in response to a question on the Amendment’s applicability to the children of Chinese migrants, that the Amendment would “incorporate…in the fundamental instrument of the nation…that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.” Another senator seemingly understood this broad application as well. In response to an inquiry on whether the children of parents from another country temporarily present in the United States would receive the benefit of citizenship (with the exception of children of foreign ministers), the senator answered yes.

Years later, anti-Chinese sentiment reached new heights across the Nation. Congress passed discriminatory laws like the Page Act of 1875 and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882— policies that etched anti-Chinese sentiment into restrictive and discriminatory immigration laws. But on the question of the outer limits of birthright citizenship, and to further expand the Chinese Exclusion Act, the United States government searched for a test case to settle the notion that the children of Chinese migrants (or in the vernacular at the time, “subjects of the Emperor of China”) could ever become part of the fabric of American life.

Ultimately, federal officials found their mark with Wong Kim Ark. Born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents, Wong sought to return to the United States after a visit to China in 1895. The government denied Wong reentry under the Chinese Exclusion Act, arguing that Wong was not an American citizen because he was born to parents who were Chinese nationals. Wong brought a challenge to his detention in federal court, and ultimately, his matter reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Court sided in Wong and rejected the government’s position. It emphatically affirmed citizenship by birth and declared that the government cannot exclude “Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution.”

Thus, for more than a century under Wong Kim Ark, the rule of birthright citizenship prevailed, and Congress reaffirmed this understanding over the decades. Babies born in the United States, regardless of the circumstances of their parents,1 were citizens of the United States. Period.

Now fast forward to the contemporary age of politics, where settled rights feel no longer settled.

Subscribe now

2. The Modern Campaign to Limit Birthright Citizenship.

The controversy over the modern attacks on birthright citizenship started in earnest not in 2025 when President Donald Trump assumed office, but more than fifteen years ago. Immigration policy featured prominently in political discourse then (as it does now), including the treatment of undocumented individuals.

U.S. Senators David Vitter (LA) and Rand Paul (KY) introduced legislation entitled the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011. Under the bill, a baby would only receive American citizenship if at least one of the baby’s parents was a citizen, a green card holder, or an individual in active service with the armed forces. On top of this effort in Congress, some state lawmakers, such as in Arizona and elsewhere, introduced similar legislation in state legislatures. They designed these efforts to essentially prompt Supreme Court review. Subsequent efforts at the state and federal level continued over the years.

Ultimately, the rumblings around birthright citizenship reached a receptive audience at the White House. In 2018, during his first term, President Trump wanted to restrict birthright citizenship, but he did not act on it. During his presidential campaign for a second term, President Trump promised in 2023 that if he returned to office, he would “end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to immigrants in the country illegally.”

After assuming office again, he finally kept his promise. On his first day of his second term, January 20, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14160 and directed federal agencies to only recognize citizenship (on a prospective basis) for those babies born to either American citizens or green card holders. No one else. Hours later, litigation ensued. Not long after, federal courts across the country imposed nationwide pauses on EO 14160, with one federal judge in Seattle remarking that in his four decades-long judicial service, he couldn’t remember “another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is,” asking “Where were the lawyers?” The judge called the EO “blatantly unconstitutional.”

With the losses racking up, the federal government, represented by the Solicitor General of the United States, sought review from the Supreme Court. In a creative (and ultimately successful) move, the government asked the Court not to address the underlying merits of the cases (i.e., whether EO 14160 was lawful), but instead focus on a procedural question that had long bothered presidents from both parties and justices on the Court outside of this case: whether lower federal courts have the authority to impose nationwide (or in the Court’s vernacular, universal) injunctions that had the effect of pausing federal government policy not just for the parties bringing the lawsuit, but for everyone.

The Court accepted the gambit. On June 27, 2025, in a 6-3 decision captioned Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), and authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court agreed with the government and ruled that universal injunctions are no longer a remedy that federal courts could impose. Instead, Justice Barrett concluded that federal courts could only craft injunctions that were no “broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.” The Court did not address the lawfulness of EO 14160 and returned the cases to the lower courts for yet more proceedings.

The losses for the federal government continued. Court after court concluded that EO 14160 violated the Constitution and federal law. And even under the CASA rubric, courts delivered far-ranging relief to pause EO 14160, whether because nearly half of the states brought the legal challenge (and thereby benefiting the residents of those states and beyond) or because expectant parents brought class actions necessitating class-wide relief for any baby impacted by EO 14160.

To abide by a promise made to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General asked the Court to review the matter on the merits and finally decide the lawfulness of EO 14160. The Court agreed. It set oral argument for April 1, 2026, with a ruling expected by the end of June.

3. New Jersey Would Bear the Brunt of EO 14160.

I’m cautiously optimistic that an unbroken line of judicial precedent, history, Executive Branch practice, and Congressional practice will lead to the inevitable demise of EO 14160. But it is worth pausing to understand the implications if the executive order is upheld. In a state like New Jersey, the effects would be felt deeply.

The most densely populated state in the country, New Jersey is home to 9.5 million people with ancestors that cover nearly every corner of the globe.

• A large share of the state’s population consists of immigrants, nearly 25% (about 2.4 million).

• Of the immigrant population, 44% (just under 1 million) are noncitizens.

• And of those noncitizens, more than half (nearly 530,000) are undocumented, making up under 6% of the total state population.

• About 23,000 international students attend colleges and universities in New Jersey.

• One estimate shows that approximately 6,200 children are born annually in New Jersey to two undocumented parents, an estimate that is likely an undercount.

• Over the last three years, the number of births per year to an undocumented mother where certain costs were covered by Medicare was between 7,000 and 8,000.

• Over 150,000 children who are considered citizens today reside with at least one undocumented parent.

• The refugee population in New Jersey is estimated at 48,500.

• The number of individuals holding temporary protected status (TPS) is over 26,000.

• The number of highly skilled workers who are in New Jersey on a H1-B visa is over 20,000.

At bottom, if EO 14160 went into effect, the lives of a large portion of New Jersey residents would be unsettled. From international students, international workers, and the undocumented to refugees and TPS holders, thousands upon thousands in New Jersey alone would have to order their lives and prepare for the possibility that if they have a child, that child would be denied the ability to establish roots in the only country that they know.2

If the United States withholds citizenship from those children, it is entirely unclear whether those children would be a citizen of any country. Parents would have to research whether their country of origin would confer citizenship on a baby born in the United States. What happens if the parents are each from different countries of origin? In a diverse state like New Jersey, the scenarios are nearly limitless and inevitable. When the child is born, is that child immediately removable from the United States? If so, to what country? The confusion, heartbreak, and frustration would be pervasive throughout.

And though EO 14160 is designed to be prospective and apply to future babies, it would give little comfort to those born today in circumstances contemplated to be excluded under the EO. The policy opens the door for others to question their citizenship, and the federal government offers no guarantee that the policy would remain prospective. Its choice to do so appears to be a matter of administrative convenience. If the federal government prevails on the merits of their position, what would stop it from applying it retroactively?

Despite these nightmare scenarios, and despite the campaign to limit birthright citizenship over the many years, I am hopeful that good judgment will prevail. The overwhelming reliance of generations who were assured that their children born in the United States would be citizens of the United States should not be simply stripped away. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, when working together, sought to eliminate caste and class in the law - building on the very notion of liberty guaranteed to every American, not the creation of an underclass.

The Citizenship Clause promises an equal claim to citizenship for future generations. It is a critical part of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., coined the “inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” The federal government fails to demonstrate any good reason3 to abandon that promise today.

The Supreme Court, I hope, ought to agree.

Share

Subscribe now

Share New Jersey Insight

The midterm election season is in full swing.

Only nine weeks into 2026, and the nation’s attention is fixed on Election Day in November.1 Every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of the U.S. Senate will face the voters this fall. Down ballot, voters across the country will also decide nearly 6,000 legislative races and ballot questions.

Not surprisingly, the workings of the election is now center stage in our national discourse, and the recent developments from the federal government are raising anxiety levels. In late January, the FBI executed a search warrant on an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, with reports that federal agents confiscated boxes and boxes of materials like ballots, voter rolls, and scanner images. High shock value, for sure, but as my former colleague put it, the warrant execution may be political theater “masquerading as criminal enforcement.”

Around the same time, the U.S. Attorney General demanded voting records from Minnesota officials and attacked Minnesota’s purported lack of cooperation with federal immigration officials. The Attorney General wanted, among other things, access to voter rolls “to confirm that Minnesota’s voter registration practices comply with federal law.” In an allusion to the surge of federal agents in the state at the time, the Attorney General declared that compliance with her demands “will help bring back law and order to Minnesota and improve the lives of Americans.” Yet in all of her rhetorical bluster, the Attorney General did not mention that the U.S. Department of Justice continues to lose in federal court whenever it tries to force states to handover personal voter data. Despite its losses in court, the Justice Department filed another lawsuit against five states last week - including New Jersey - for their “failure to produce their full voter registration lists upon request.”

Not surprisingly, the President shared his thoughts on the subject with the rest of us. In a podcast interview, he supported the idea to “take over” the voting procedures in as many as 15 states. His political party, the President maintained, “ought to nationalize the voting.”2 He also wants to impose a mandatory voter identification requirement, “whether approved by Congress or not!”3

In Congress last month, the U.S. House of Representative passed a bill called the SAVE America Act, which - if enacted - would impose requirements for voters to produce documentation of their citizenship before they could vote in a federal election.4 The concern behind the bill - preventing fraudulent voting by noncitizens (which is already illegal) - simply lacks any evidential support. Time and again, such claims of widespread voter fraud do not survive scrutiny. Not to mention that the bill would impact millions of Americans who do not have ready access to citizenship papers like a passport.

Subscribe now

In the face of pressure from the federal government, we have seen efforts on the state level to shore up the integrity of the election. In New Jersey,5 advocates have pushed for the passage of the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act. The bill acts as a counterpart to the national Voting Rights Act. If enacted, the bill - among other things - would:

• Designate the New Jersey Attorney General as the “chief legal officer” for purposes of voting rights and elections;6

• Create a Division of Voting Rights, an independent state agency charged with enforcing voting rights in the state;

• Prohibit voter suppression and vote dilution measures, as well as create a preclearance mechanism that would require pre-approval of any local election rule changes in certain circumstances; and

• Require translations of election materials and assistance in other languages.

As Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, a state lawmaker who is championing the bill, put it, efforts to protect the right to vote represents a “shared belief to ensuring that every eligible New Jerseyan can participate in the civic process that shapes our daily lives.” On February 19, 2026, supporters overcame an initial hurdle when the New Jersey Assembly State and Local Government Committee advanced the legislation, which will now continue to wind through the legislative process.

For a deeper take on the issue from one of the main advocates of the bill, I’ve asked , who currently leads the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ), to share his perspectives on the bill and its importance. Amol is a leader that I admire a lot. In this brief interview, I also asked him - as foundation setting for his current work - about his path to public interest.

Q. You have led ACLU-NJ since 2017, and your entire career speaks to serving the public interest when many lawyers tend to gravitate toward private sector life. Following law school, why did you decide to pursue your path in public interest?

Amol Sinha: I interned for ACLU National in law school working on national security, First Amendment, and human rights issues and I was sold. It’s not only that I wanted to work in public interest, I knew that I wanted to work at the ACLU and focus my career on defending civil rights and liberties. I found the work of the organization incredibly compelling, and was particularly drawn in to its nonpartisan and principled approach. The ACLU works to hold government accountable, regardless of political party or who is in the White House. We’ve sued every president since Woodrow Wilson and we will continue to do so throughout our existence.

I was also attracted to the ACLU’s scope and approach – it is truly a multi-issue, multi-tactic organization. From early on in my career, I saw litigation as one tool – not the only tool – to achieve change. The ACLU’s model of integrated advocacy – using multiple strategies in harmony, including impact litigation, legislative advocacy, community organizing, strategic communications, and more – spoke to me as a more holistic approach. The theory is that no one strategy is going to achieve the durable wins we need, but perhaps a constellation of strategies in concert will bring us closer.

Q. In recent years, you and ACLU-NJ have been in the crosshairs of so many important public policy debates in New Jersey. How do you decide which areas to focus on, especially in these charged times?

Amol Sinha: It’s the hardest part of the work. We are constantly evaluating potential cases, legislative campaigns, and other initiatives. Our mission is expansive and so is our work – we have to be disciplined in our approach so that we are not constantly overwhelmed. There are many ways we make decisions about priorities, and sometimes the urgency of the moment dictates. Right now, we are seeing rampant abuse of power, a violent mass deportation agenda, and the erosion of the rule of law and our democracy – so we’re firing on all fronts. Consistently, we look to whether an issue falls under our mission, whether we are the right voice, and whether it would actually deliver change. Another way we look at the work is a calculation of our expertise, opportunity, and impact. Ideally, our priorities fall at the middle of that Venn diagram.

Q. One of those areas has been voting rights. In the New Jersey Legislature, your organization and so many others have been pushing for the passage of the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act. If passed, the bill would - among other things - protect against voter intimidation, empower voters to protect their right to vote in court, and expand language access for voters. Unfortunately in the last legislative session, while it made progress, and despite a strong list of supporters, it did not cross the finish line to passage before the session ended. But recently, we’ve seen a promising development when an Assembly committee voted to advance the bill. As we approach the midterm election in the coming months, why is this bill important for New Jersey to pass?

Amol Sinha: The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy. When people think about who it is that is being disenfranchised in our country, they usually think about people in southern states or “red” states. They rarely think about New Jerseyans. However, there are many ways in which New Jersey is susceptible to disenfranchising voters in our state, and that disproportionately impacts voters of color. If we want to, we can be the gold standard for democracy. As the Trump administration tries to erect barriers to voting, especially as we approach the midterms, it is all the more reason we need to make sure New Jersey is doing whatever we can to protect voters.

Q. At the national level, we have heard press reports about federal enforcement actions at an election office in Georgia and the demand from the Attorney General of the United States for Minnesota election records.7 Congress is also considering the SAVE Act, which would, among other things, impose citizenship documentation requirements on voters. How does the broader political context affect, if at all, how the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act is viewed in New Jersey? Does the New Jersey bill have anything to do with partisan politics?

Amol Sinha: In addition to the other issues you cite, the Trump administration is going after voter files in many states, including right here in New Jersey. They are seeking the full, unredacted voter file which contains sensitive information including dates of birth, social security numbers, and more, without explaining what it is that they intend to do with the information. Not only is this a serious threat to privacy, it can be used to justify unjust challenges and purges of records, potentially leading to the disenfranchisement of scores of people, especially vulnerable voters including voters of color and voters who are naturalized citizens.

We’re fighting back across the nation by intervening in litigation in those cases on behalf of organizations and voters. I am proud that we just filed a motion to intervene here in New Jersey on behalf of civil rights and civic engagement organizations and individual voters in our state.

I know we are living in increasingly polarized times. However, guaranteeing a robust democracy has nothing to do with partisan politics. People across the ideological spectrum support the right to vote, and my hope is that we will have wide, bipartisan support for the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act.

Q. What would be your message to lawmakers in New Jersey about this bill?

Amol Sinha: The time to act is now. As the Supreme Court of the United States is poised to further dismantle the federal Voting Rights Act, and in the face of existential threat to our democracy, states must lead the way. New Jersey has the opportunity to take a bold step, empower our residents, and embrace democracy.

Whether in New Jersey or on the national stage, count on more developments in the election and voting realm as we inch closer to Election Day. Many thanks to Amol for his time and sharing his insight with us.

Stay safe, and stay engaged.

Share

Subscribe now

Share New Jersey Insight

Overnight, the United States undertook a major military operation against Iran. In his announcement, President Trump articulated an objective to "defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime." He also recognized the possibility that American lives may be lost and that "we may have causalities. That often happens in war."

We were told that intense negotiations with Iran occurred to avoid military action and that diplomacy was the preferred method. But now with this conflict (dubbed Operation Epic Fury) underway, we should not lose sight of the following:

1. The Iranian regime hardly elicits any sympathy. They operate in the absence of any democratic legitimacy, and they fail to accord any respect to the rights of the Iranian people, as evidenced by the most recent violent crackdown of protestors.

2. The U.S. Constitution is clear on the decision-making for war. It is not for the President to decide unilaterally, but it is for Congress to "declare War." And to date, Congress - the institution that ought to represent the will of the people - has not debated the propriety of armed conflict with Iran.

3. The President's remarks invoke the idea that the United States acted in self-defense. Yes, armed conflict may be justified to prevent an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. But the President, so far, has not laid out a persuasive case, backed with evidence, on the necessity to do so now.

4. The United Nations Charter, a document that the United States ratified in 1945, requires -- outside of self-defense -- authorization from the UN Security Council for armed conflict "as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." This has not happened.

5. The means on how we as a country decide to use military force matters. And so does the law. As I mentioned previously in response to the military operation in Venezuela, "when it comes to war and peace, the means matters. In fact, it’s the means that can actually avoid war and keep the peace."

With the safety of countless civilians and our service members in mind, I'll end by echoing my past observation, that "the United States is now operating with the power of might, rather than the power of right.

And I do not know what comes next for our Nation."

Share

Subscribe now

Share New Jersey Insight

This fall, my daughter will start kindergarten, a milestone both for her and for me and my wife. Though she has already entered the public school system as a preschooler, kindergarten seems...different. For one, the school day is longer (by an entire forty-five minutes!). Also, as I hear from other parents, the kindergarten curriculum has a rigor unlike a preschool curriculum. Yes, I know. I’m comparing preschool to kindergarten. But whether it is starting elementary school, high school, or college, surely I must do my best to ensure that my little one is prepared to succeed and dominate. Right?

My overambitious and overbearing parenting instincts aside, I have been thinking a lot about the overall relationship between the education system and the people. In my past work as special counsel to Governor Phil Murphy, I was routinely immersed in controversies with statewide import involving our schools. But as a parent, the stakes hit much differently now, and much more personally, than they did before.

A lot can be said about the shortcomings of our public education system, much more than what I can devote to in this newsletter. But I do want to share my observations on one aspect: the interplay between the law and the governmental institutions that are charged to deliver education for our children. In particular, I want to focus on how the law in New Jersey creates meaningful leverage points that compels state policymakers to act and, conversely, how it exacts costs on the government when it refuses. In other words, in New Jersey, the responsibility to deliver quality K-12 education to all of its residents is not simply one political issue out of many for elected officials to address, but instead, it is a constitutional imperative.

In the United States, the federal government plays a limited role in K-12 education. Federal monies constitute about 10% of K-12 funding. The U.S. Department of Education focuses on not only distributing that funding, but also “enforcing civil rights laws and conducting educational research.” The Department’s footprint is likely even smaller today since last year, the President ordered the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States.”1

The bulk of control and power over public schools, therefore, lies with the states. And often, state and local communities drive the education agenda. In New Jersey, the state department of education and the statewide board of education oversees the governance of 2,500 public schools serving 1.4 million students. The local boards of education primarily oversees the day-to-day operations of their respective school districts - nearly 600 of them - and decides everything from staffing allocations and teacher salaries to curriculum. And though local boards of education can exercise a lot of discretion, their discretion is cabined by state law and regulations.

The game changer in New Jersey is the mandate baked into our state charter: the thorough and efficient clause of the New Jersey Constitution.

The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.

N.J. Const. Art. VII, Section IV (T&E Clause).

A concept that evolves over time, the T&E Clause requires: “a certain level of educational opportunity, a minimum level, that will equip the student to become a citizen and...a competitor in the labor market.” For over 30 years, the New Jersey Supreme Court - one of the few high courts to do so - put the state government to task to achieve this constitutional vision. Through a series of decisions captioned under Abbott v. Burke, the court regularly required the legislature to fund school districts that have historically suffered from underfunding to a level that is equivalent to other performing districts. It also would demand the implementation of supplemental programs to cover gaps in education attainment in these districts, like preschool programs.

The mandate extended to school facilities, with a judicial recognition that “adequate physical school facilities are an essential component” of the T&E Clause requirement. As recently as during the pandemic, the state had to appear in court and show its progress in funding school construction in the most-needed school districts. With the ongoing litigation as a backdrop (and likely a pressure point), the legislature initially authorized $200 million in fiscal year 2022 for school facilities projects. It later appropriated upwards of approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2023 to finance school construction projects.

Subscribe now

We can speculate whether, in the absence of judicial pressure, state policymakers would have prioritized school funding in this manner. Elected officials routinely espouse their support for public education, but yet, we see deficiencies in our system. Education disparities breakdown by class, geography, and race. Especially in the states where money isn’t finite, policymakers are in the middle of a push and pull where students, parents, teachers, and municipal leaders all have their priorities to advance.2 And on top of this dynamic, we have a public school system that remains primarily funded through the imposition of real estate taxes - a structure that will inevitably favor wealthier geographies over those areas that are not.

Hence, the complicated relationship between government and schools. Our aspirations are high, but the political will seems muddled. But with the right incentives and pressure points like a judicially enforced education mandate, we can at least expect policymakers to move in the right direction, willingly or not.

Share New Jersey Insight

When I served as a state trial court judge in New Jersey,1 I periodically had emergency duty. For about a week at a time, I would be on call during the overnight hours to address any emergent matters that could not wait for the next business day. This often involved applications for search warrants.

For me, a request to approve a search warrant followed a typical pattern. First, I would inevitably receive a call after midnight. The initial call would usually come from the on-duty county sheriff and start with a quick apology for waking me up. The sheriff would then advise me that an assistant prosecutor would contact me soon with a request to approve a search warrant. Police officers are already on standby, I’m told, outside of the suspect’s home ready to execute the warrant once I approve. And because these occur in the overnight hours, time is of the essence. A suspect is wanted in a homicide, for example, or involved in narcotics, and the circumstances justify an immediate search of the home for evidence of the crime.

Despite the hour, I would wake up quickly and get to work. Law enforcement would prepare for me an affidavit of probable cause in support of the warrant request. Thoroughly drafted, it detailed the actions and discoveries of law enforcement, minute-by-minute, that led them to the home in question. The affidavit would usually include maps and pictures to accurately identify the home that they wish to search. On my end, I would evaluate the papers carefully to ensure that they establish what the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires: “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation... particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Not an incredibly high standard, but a demanding one. Regardless of the allegations of criminality, this is still someone’s home. If the government wants to enter it without consent in the middle of the night, it better get it right. I always appreciated the prosecutors and law enforcement who would prepare these applications for me with the care and meticulousness that they deserve given the gravity of the action that they wish to undertake.

Once I concluded that the papers met the standard, I would electronically sign the warrant and then attempt to return to sleep...though usually to no avail. My thoughts would still be on that search request, envisioning how the folks in that home would be reacting once they hear the knock from law enforcement and wondering whether the search proceeded safely for both the occupants and law enforcement.

Subscribe now

Fast forward to a week and a half ago, the Associated Press reported on an astounding internal memo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Issued in May 2025 by the Acting ICE Director, the memo relayed advice from the general counsel’s office in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which summarily dispensed with the constitutional rule that a judicial warrant is required before the government can enter someone’s home without consent. Instead, according to the memo, ICE can simply rely on an administrative warrant (i.e., a document that ICE issues for itself) to enter a home to effectuate an arrest of an individual subject to an order of removal (i.e., a document that can be issued by the executive branch itself).

No need for a detached and impartial arbiter, according to ICE, to evaluate and determine whether probable cause exists to enter the home, let alone whether the subject in question is even present at the time that ICE wishes to enter the home. No need for thorough affidavits, on oath or affirmation, that describe “with particularity” the place to be searched. As long as ICE determines for itself that “a reason” exists that it believes “that the subject alien resides at and is currently located in the address,” the government can enter someone’s home. The Fourth Amendment barely receives a mention in the memo, except in a footnote to acknowledge a contrary court decision in the Central District of California.

Since this reporting, plenty of commentators ripped apart the absurd conclusion in this somewhat secretive ICE memo. It is simply “wrong as a legal matter — and it threatens one of the most basic freedoms Americans have: the right to be safe in their own homes.” Final orders of removal are “not arrest warrants,” and for those arguing that the Fourth Amendment does not protect noncitizens without lawful immigration status, such a claim “is also bunk.” The plain text of the Fourth Amendment speaks to the “right of the people” and “persons” to be seized, and the protection - in my view - does not turn on how the executive branch views an individual’s immigration status. Rather, the Fourth Amendment limits the actions of the government before it can intrude on anyone’s privacy.

The shocking reverberations of recent ICE actions, whether it be the revelation of this memo, the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, or the continued allegations of misconduct by federal personnel in Minneapolis, are reaching a crescendo for the federal judiciary. In an order, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota shared his outright frustration with ICE. In response to a request from a habeas litigant to enforce a prior court order setting a bond hearing, Judge Schiltz declared that the court’s “patience is at an end” and ordered the Acting ICE Director to appear in court unless the litigant was released from custody. Two days later, the parties acknowledged that ICE released the litigant. Judge Schiltz, as promised, no longer required the Acting ICE Director to appear in court. But as he did so, Judge Schiltz drew our attention to “96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases” since January 1, 2026, a count that is likely understated.

Judge Schiltz cautions us that such frequent violations of court orders “should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law.” And in an extraordinary statement, the judge declares that “ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” The agency “is not a law unto itself.”

I’ll let that sit. Lastly, I’ll conclude today with another federal court order, this time involving a father and a five-year old detained by ICE in Minnesota and quickly transported to Texas. Judge Fred Biery of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered their release. But in doing so, Judge Biery issued a pithy, three-page opinion that, honestly, deserves a read by everyone. It draws on the genesis of this nation and the animating concerns of the Declaration of Independence. At bottom, it pulls on the morality of each and every one of us.

Please stay safe and engaged.

Share New Jersey Insight

The developments in Minneapolis are beyond disturbing.

Since December 2025, the federal government has conducted Operation Metro Surge, “an ongoing enforcement effort that has led to an unprecedented increase in federal law enforcement presence to enforce immigration laws in Minnesota.” Press reports and social media are filled with story and story of tactics that depict, at best, wholly unprofessional conduct and, at worst, unconstitutional conduct. A U.S. District Court judge in Minneapolis has already concluded that federal officers acted illegally and ordered them to follow the law - an order that seems shocking yet self-evident at the same time.

The horrific shooting death of Renee Good in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, acted as a crescendo. Since then, the federal government has announced that a surge of federal officers will arrive in Minneapolis, a city with a population of less than 500,000 and a police force of around 500. It has also dangled the possibility of active-duty troops and floated an invocation of the Insurrection Act. State and local officials are demanding that the federal government lower the temperature and withdraw the federal deployment.

With so many individuals alleging that federal agents violated their civil rights, the question of available civil remedies is now top of mind.1 Ordinarily, if state or local police officers engaged in misconduct, whether it be excessive use of force or a false arrest, the answer would be easy. Longstanding federal law in place since the end of the Civil War allows victims to bring a civil lawsuit against police officers for money damages. They could even ask for an order to prevent the misconduct from happening again. Cases under that federal law (42 U.S.C. 1983) are quite routine in our nation’s judicial system. I’ve handled many Section 1983 cases during my time as a litigator defending state officials and state law enforcement.

The same, however, cannot be said for federal officers. Congress never enacted a law that would act as the counterpart to Section 1983 for federal officers. In addressing this glaring gap, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), permitted a civil lawsuit to proceed against federal agents for Fourth Amendment violations. Since then, through a series of cases over the years, the Court significantly scaled back the availability of a Bivens remedy. So much so that now, Dean and Professor Emeritus Burt Neuborne described in a recent NY Times essay that since 1980:

Not once...has it allowed Bivens suits (as they came to be known) to go forward. In case after case, the court has precluded people whose rights have been violated from suing even when they suffered great injuries.

In their piece, Dean Chemerinsky and Professor Neuborne called for federal legislation - a “Renee Good Civil Rights Act” - to close this hole in federal law.

Unquestionably a worthy goal, but forgive me if I don’t hold my breath for Congress to act.

Subscribe now

Without Congressional action, states will likely try to fill the vacuum. Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan advocacy group, is promoting the Universal Constitutional Remedies Act, a model state law that would be the Section 1983 counterpart to apply against federal officers. Lawmakers in Minnesota are introducing state legislation to allow individuals to bring lawsuits against federal officers for constitutional violations.

These efforts beg the question: could a state do such a thing...create a state mechanism to allow an individual to bring a civil lawsuit against a federal officer for federal constitutional violations? Admittedly, it’s an odd proposition, especially for those of us schooled in the idea that the states and the federal government are separate sovereigns with their own realms and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution acts as the enforcer whenever the states and the federal government get in each other’s way. Spoiler alert: under the Supremacy Clause, the federal government often wins.

But on reflection, the argument in support of such a legal avenue appears quite plausible. Not only that, in New Jersey, a strong argument exists that the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, the counterpart to Section 1983, may already permit a civil rights lawsuit against a federal officer to proceed in the state.

Protect Democracy details the argument in favor nicely. I won’t belabor their analysis here, but I’ll highlight a few points from Professor ’s article from 1987(!). He starts with the observation that “true sovereignty in our system lies only in the People of the United States” and that all governments in the United States are “necessarily limited.” From there, Professor Amar sets the table where “federalism cuts both ways” and makes the case that a state law counterpart to Section 1983 for federal officers is not only good policy, it is a permissible exercise of state power. After all, why would we as a Nation ever countenance a scenario that a federal officer would somehow be able to escape accountability when it comes to violations of the federal constitution?

Whether intentional or not, New Jersey may have heeded Professor Amar’s call. In 2004, the state enacted the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA),2 a statute that was designed to be an “analog” to Section 1983. It allows for an individual to bring a civil lawsuit against anyone “acting under color of law” for a violation of any “substantive” rights under the United States or New Jersey constitutions. Contrast the language in the NJCRA with that found in Section 1983, which permits lawsuits against anyone acting under “color of [law] of any State” (my emphasis) for violations of federal constitutional rights.3

The difference is consequential. Unlike Section 1983, which is limited to state officials (i.e., acting under color of state law), the NJCRA has no such limitation (i.e., “acting under color of law”). Under the NJCRA’s plain language, a plaintiff can make a plausible case that a federal officer may personally be held liable under the NJCRA for federal constitutional violations4 that occur in New Jersey. A plaintiff can further argue that because of the NJCRA’s broad remedial purposes, New Jersey’s choice to exclude any reference to a person acting under color of state law to simply “acting under color of law” was an intentional one and designed to reach all unconstitutional acts that occur within the borders of New Jersey, whether conducted by local, state, or federal officers. In other words, the plain language of the NJCRA, coupled with the legislative intent to cover “potential gaps in remedies,” may dictate that federal officers fall well within its ambit.5

A plaintiff in New Jersey could test the waters. The endeavor, however, may not have a guarantee of ultimate success. A number of obstacles would likely arise. If filed in a state court in New Jersey, the federal officer may seek to move the case to federal court. Further, the federal officer may seek to dismiss the case claiming an immunity from suit or ask for an outright dismissal under some type of Supremacy Clause theory. In short, many possibilities exist to slow down or completely discard such a lawsuit.

But recent events in Minneapolis and elsewhere demonstrate a strong desire from the public for an accountability structure. When faith is lost in the ordinary institutions of the government to pursue justice (however imperfect it may be), the people will look for alternatives. Today, the states are an attractive, alternative forum to reassert the Nation’s principles of a constitutional republic.

I’ll start in New Jersey. On Monday, January 12, 2026, as it wrapped up its legislative session, the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation that, among other things, would codify the law enforcement policy of the Murphy Administration (in place since 2018) limiting the interactions between state and local law enforcement personnel and federal civil immigration enforcement authorities. Other versions of the legislation had languished in the legislature for some time, apparently because of the fear that it would invite a fresh legal challenge by the federal government.

But the mood shifted significantly after the shooting in Minneapolis on Wednesday, January 7, 2026. Widely circulated video showed a federal immigration agent shoot and kill Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, while she was in her vehicle. New Jersey legislators quickly took notice, and by the next day in Trenton, they heard emotional testimony in a committee session from members of the public describing the palpable fear that is pervading throughout the immigrant communities in the state.

The bills passed the committee that day, which set the stage for their ultimate passage in both chambers of the legislature on Monday night, January 12. They now await the signature of Governor Phil Murphy.

Subscribe now

Contrary to some, the legislation does not create a “sanctuary” for anyone, let alone for immigrants. If someone commits a crime, the person will be held accountable, regardless of their immigration status. Similarly, if an individual falls out of immigration status, they may be subject to federal enforcement action, and nothing in the legislation would prevent that.

Instead, the legislation delineates lines of accountability and a policy judgment by elected officials on the best use of law enforcement resources. In our system of government, it is widely understood that the states hold the police power; in other words, they have the primary responsibility to maintain public safety and the general welfare of their population. The vast majority of criminal prosecutions happen at the state level. The federal government, on the other hand, can only exercise power as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. And immigration is one of those areas where the federal government, not the states, has nearly exclusive authority to regulate. Congress, in creating our immigration system, decided that much of the violations of federal immigration law are civil, not criminal, in nature.

Thus, for states like New Jersey, policymakers can reasonably decide that in the face of finite resources, states should focus on public safety. By limiting voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration authorities, but allowing for robust cooperation with federal agencies (including the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security) on serious criminal investigations, state and local governments can allocate their limited resources to maintaining public safety and maintain lines of accountability.

When it comes to day-to-day crime, state and local officials will be the ones primarily addressing it. When it comes to immigration, the federal government is responsible.

Which brings us back to the developments and ongoing strife in Minneapolis. After the killing of Ms. Good, the response of Minnesota leaders has been direct, laying blame on the lap of the federal government. The people in Minneapolis and across the country have protested the seemingly overreach of federal enforcement. In turn, the U.S. Department of Justice has refused to partner with its Minnesota counterparts in the shooting investigation. The federal government has surged enforcement personnel to the Minneapolis region, drawing allegations of unprofessional tactics and racial profiling. And now, Minnesota has brought a legal challenge to the deployment of federal agents in the state.

Deescalation is sorely needed.1 So is an independent investigation into the shooting. I tend to agree with my former colleague ’s assessment. Considering the public statements to date, the investigation is likely “hopelessly compromised” in the eyes of the public.

Whether in Minnesota or New Jersey, the lines of accountability between state officials and the federal government matter. And so does accountability at the ballot box.

Make no mistake. Maduro doesn’t exactly elicit any sympathy. Though he assumed the presidency of Venezuela in 2013, after the 2018 presidential election, the national Venezuelan legislature refused to recognize Maduro as the legitimate president. The United States has not recognized Maduro as Venezuela’s leader since 2019.

A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York originally returned a criminal indictment in 2020 and charged Maduro with, among other things, narcotics trafficking, terrorism, and the possession of destructive devices.

After the 2024 presidential election, Maduro declared himself the leader despite evidence to the contrary. In the end, his hold on the Venezuelan presidency barely had the veneer (if at all) of any democratic legitimacy - on top of the troubling accusations of narcotics trafficking.

Subscribe now

So yes, now that Maduro is detained in the United States, he ought to face trial for the serious charges leveled against him. And as with any criminal defendant in the U.S., Maduro will (and should) have the full panoply of protections under American law so that he can defend himself.

But no matter how just the ends are, they do not (and cannot) justify the means. The means themselves must be defensible. I can understand the compulsion of an executive to seek results swiftly without being bogged down with process (the “means”). Though not the best comparison, our current political discourse is heavily focused on affordability and how leaders can quickly act and cut through red tape to secure relief, whether it be on housing, wages, or the cost of living. A whole book makes the case that in areas like building homes and infrastructure, leaders should focus more on results and less on burdensome process.

But this isn’t the building of a house or a bridge. When it comes to war and peace, the means matters. In fact, it’s the means that can actually avoid war and keep the peace.

And here, the means is defined by law. One doesn’t need to be a legal expert to conclude that - at a minimum - absent a threat to the security of the United States, an authorization from Congress, or a blessing from the United Nations Security Council, this military action was “entirely unauthorized by U.S. law” and “a textbook violation of international law.”1

Now, the country, and the people of Venezuela, are left with the consequences. A thought has been playing repeatedly in my mind today since the news broke. An old adage tells us that history can repeat itself unless we learn from it. But rather than repeat, I believe history tends to rhyme. Last night’s military action evokes memories of U.S. intervention in so many countries in the Western Hemisphere, such as in Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Chile, El Salvador, and others - a long line of history that I thought would be left in the books of history. Instead, Venezuela, which is already burdened with its share of overwhelming challenges, will have to find a path to democratic stability. And the United States is now operating with the power of might, rather than the power of right.

And I do not know what comes next for our Nation.

It’s the end of the year. The holiday season is in full swing. And in between holiday activities,1 I’ve been reflecting.

This past year has brought a lot of...change.2 In 2025, we have witnessed a widespread shift in politics and culture. Through them all, one thread appeared frequently: the question of American identity. As we enter the 250th anniversary of this nation’s founding, we have yet to settle it. Who is an American?

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson started to define it. One who believes that all [men] are “created equal” with certain “unalienable Rights,” and among those are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nearly a hundred years later, upon the suggestion of U.S. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, the nation amended its founding charter to define an American citizen as one “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Jefferson’s conception of an American started with a set of core values. The U.S. Constitution later delineated who can be a citizen, but without an explicit reference to those core values. The law today fills in some of those gaps, but only for the naturalization process. A foreigner who wishes to naturalize must promise to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States” and possess “good moral character,” among other things, but the same is not required for someone merely born here. Yet both are American citizens.

Therein lies some of the tension. If a foreigner who is eligible to naturalize and become a citizen, but refuses to support the Constitution or does not have “good moral character,” they obviously should not be able to naturalize under current law. In contrast, if a person who is born in the United States and later espouses a set of beliefs that runs counter to basic constitutional principles (or does not have “good moral character”), they would likely enjoy First Amendment protections without any concern that their citizenship would ever be called into question.3

Subscribe now

Today, the question of American identity is a prominent feature of our politics. With rapid changes in immigration policy, the current administration is narrowing the pathways for immigrants to arrive in the United States and to remain here. For those who are present in this country, the government is endeavoring to narrow the ambit of children who would be entitled to birthright citizenship despite the plain meaning of the Constitution. For naturalized citizens, the government now plans to increase its efforts to strip foreign-born Americans of their citizenship, representing a “a massive escalation of denaturalization in the modern era.”

And just several months ago, the current Vice President of the United States suggested that mere “agreement with the creedal principles of America” would be insufficient to be an American because it is both “overinclusive and underinclusive.” In his view, such a standard would include countless foreigners but reject “a lot of people the ADL would label domestic extremists, even though their own ancestors were here at the time of the Revolutionary War.”4

He then went on to create a straw man in New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani (along with the undefined “Left”) and demanded that individuals like Mamdani ought to have “gratitude for this country.”

A lot to say in response. But I’m most troubled by the Vice President’s implication that immigration and American identity are mutually exclusive (history tells us otherwise) and that, somehow, those with a long ancestral lineage in the U.S. has a superior claim to American identity than others. In other words, some are more worthy Americans, and others are less worthy. Such distinctions, in my view, are profoundly wrong and run counter to a fundamental American principle: equality under the law.5

For me, when I think of American identity, I think of the story of my parents first arriving in the United States from Bangladesh at the dawn of this nation’s bicentennial. I think about the story of my wife’s parents, who fled the ravages of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia and arrived here as refugees, ultimately becoming naturalized citizens, and working tirelessly to become mainstays in their community as small business owners while raising two children. I think about my parents appearing in a federal courthouse over forty years ago in Oklahoma City with a one-year old (me) and raising their hands to pledge their exclusive allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

In the end, no one path holds a monopoly over the American identity. Whether those who arrived here recently, those who were born to immigrants or refugees, or those who have a long lineage - they all have their American story and American identity.

This reminds me of James Baldwin, who echoed a sentiment from Henry James: “It is a complex fate to be an American.”

Yes it is. I hope all of you have a restful holiday season, and happy new year.

Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill’s choice for attorney general will be consequential.

Whoever she decides to nominate, the candidate - if confirmed - will have a significant degree of independence and lead a vast department of over 8,000 employees across 24 divisions, offices, and commissions as the state’s chief law enforcement officer and its chief lawyer. The work of the department impacts the lives of millions in this state. Nothing of consequence happens in New Jersey without passing through the attorney general’s office in one way or another.

During my tenure in New Jersey government, I worked closely with four attorneys general under Democratic and Republican administrations. Each of them brought their unique perspectives to the role and their own leadership style. But despite the differences among them, the job requires, in my view, certain core, nonnegotiable qualities from the officeholder to be effective and successful. Here are the top three that the Governor-elect should consider.

1. Integrity

The role of attorney general is powerful, very powerful. On the criminal side, not only does the attorney general prosecute major criminal offenses like public corruption, but they also oversee “the administration of criminal justice throughout the state” and supervise all twenty-one county prosecutors. The New Jersey State Police reports directly to the attorney general, and the attorney general has supervisory authority over all state and local law enforcement officers. On the civil side, the attorney general regulates countless professions and businesses, enforces consumer protection and civil rights laws, and through a combination of statute and executive order, acts as the exclusive lawyer for the administration.

Integrity is not only ideal, but necessary. Considering the immense power and scope of the office, the attorney general must have a deep, moral compass to align their decisions with the best interests of the people that they serve. “Power tends to corrupt,” so an old adage goes, and “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” With recent corruption scandals as a reminder, backstops - like personal integrity and a robust culture of ethics and compliance - are crucial. In other words, when the attorney general wakes up each morning, their first thought must be laser focused on improving the lives of the people of New Jersey.

2. Judgment

When a controversy or issue reaches the attorney general, the right answer is rarely apparent. So much of the role is left to discretion, and while advisors can certainly guide, the attorney general will often be the sole decision-maker.

A former attorney general would frequently quip that in the role, he did not need to be the smartest lawyer in the room (though he was quite smart) as long as he exercised sound judgment. Yes, but to go one step further, the attorney general should not only surround themselves with smart and capable leaders to inform their judgment, but should also be intellectually curious. Asking the right questions is often more important than knowing all of the answers, on top of having an acute awareness of the current political environment. And with those answers, the ability to connect the dots between what may appear to be unconnected matters at first to arrive at a fully informed decision will pay dividends.

3. Emotional Intelligence

Much of the attorney general’s role is public facing. From legislators and public officials to community stakeholders and ordinary constituents, the attorney general and their team are constantly navigating personalities to advance the office’s priorities as well as the governor’s policy initiatives. To say that the job requires a high degree of emotional intelligence is an understatement. For a successful tenure, it’ll be critical to overcome roadblocks, properly assess the interests at stake, and ultimately persuade and lead.

The same applies internally to leading a department of thousands of employees. An attorney general can have all of the priorities in the world, but unless they can motivate a dedicated workforce to implement, those priorities may simply be relegated to words on paper. The ability to empower the staff, respecting the institutional insight that they bring, will make the difference.

* * *

At bottom, many of the core competencies needed to be an effective attorney general are not so different from those of an effective leader at a large organization. The difference here, however, is the stakes, and today, the stakes are high. The expansive powers of the attorney general, coupled with the stresses imposed on our democracy, call for an attorney general that acts with integrity and resolve, and on behalf of the people.

As a resident of New Jersey, I hope that Governor-elect Sherrill chooses wisely.

Rahat N. Babar is the deputy executive director and general counsel at the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association and a former judge on the Superior Court of New Jersey. He previously served in senior positions in the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and in the Murphy Administration.

Some context. In March 2019, the unthinkable occurred in Christchurch, New Zealand. At two mosques during Friday prayers, a perpetrator shot and killed 51 people and injured scores of others. Evidence revealed that the perpetrator was motivated by his animosity towards Muslims and immigrants. The devastation ricocheted not only across New Zealand, with the Prime Minister calling the event one of the darkest days in the country’s history, but also across the world.

In New Jersey, nearly 9,000 miles away, our communities felt the impact. The tragedy came less than five months after the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh that resulted in eleven deaths and many others injured. Days after the shooting in New Zealand, a synagogue in northern New Jersey hosted an interfaith prayer vigil to remember the victims, and the organizers invited me to share a few words. I served in state government at the time and agreed to do so.

In the moments leading to the vigil, I remember feeling both the weight of the moment and frustration. The weight because any one of those victims could have been easily me or my loved ones; I recalled the many times that I attended prayers at our local mosque during my childhood. The frustration because the moment demanded action.

When I took the lectern, I shared my shock and sorrow. But I also observed how in the United States and across the world, the rhetoric of hate appeared to be on the rise. I commented on the work (i.e., action) that my colleagues and I undertook here at home to achieve a vision that welcomes all, whether it be combatting harmful policies against Dreamers and asylum seekers, and opposing the Muslim ban. I ended by remarking that one of the first victims in the New Zealand shooting actually greeted the perpetrator as he entered the mosque with “Hello, brother,” a lesson for us to emulate despite the ensuing tragedy.

Immediately after the conclusion of the vigil, a few individuals beelined to me. They thanked me for attending, but they objected strongly to my choice of words. In their view, my invocation of the work was “too political” and had no place in a vigil. They advised me that I should have limited my remarks to expressions of sorrow and not referenced anything that would be seen as political.

Now looking back years later, while I still disagree with their views (maybe a post for another day about the differences between advancing policy, the political process, and partisanship), I appreciated that they shared their views with me. Truly. They didn’t interrupt me while I was speaking. They didn’t insult me personally. They didn’t call for me to be removed from the United States. In fact, they thanked me for participating.

Today, in contrast, I fear that our public discourse is devolving to a point of no return. Instead of a vigorous back and forth contesting the merits of policy and our vision for the country, more and more are resorting to personal attacks (which, admittedly, is far from a novel development), attacks on faith, and - at times - calling into question the very existence of one’s political adversary in this land.

Not surprisingly, with this backdrop, the public is becoming more cynical with politics. Recent polling has revealed that most American voters believe that the country “is incapable of overcoming its deep divisions.”

The race for New York City mayor is emblematic of the current state of public discourse, and for me, it has struck a nerve. Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, has been subjected to a variety of criticism at all levels of intensity. The critiques on his policy proposals, like an increase of the income tax for wealthy earners, government-run grocery stores, or free bus rides, are fair game, and New York City voters should critically examine these and other proposed policies and make their own judgments.

But the attacks on Mamdani’s Islamic faith and his very presence1 not only cross a red line and harm a whole swath of communities beyond the candidate himself, they also distract from the matters that actually impact people. Trafficking in Islamaphobic tropes does nothing for folks who are struggling to survive in one of the most expensive cities in the United States. Calling for the stripping of Mandani’s citizenship does nothing to improve schools or small businesses.

All these attacks do, instead, is sow division to make one group feel better and another group feel worse. And they cause a chilling effect. As I explained before, for those who share a similar background, they may conclude understandably that the cost to serve their communities may simply be too high. The message that these attacks send is loud and clear to an entire generation of prospective leaders. If you wish to serve, don’t bother.

The current course is not sustainable. Let’s bring the focus back to the issues that actually affect each and every one of us. Let’s debate the issues vigorously and be candid about our disagreements. But let’s leave the nonsense out of it.

Within the executive branch, the President has centralized and accumulated vast amounts of power beyond what his modern predecessors ever exercised. The invocation of “emergencies,” which have lead to a panoply of unilateral executive actions, for existing, long-standing issues has become practically routine. Institutions created by Congress that once imposed normative checks on an ambitious executive have been transformed into extensions of the executive and its policy aims. The military, which has assiduously avoided in modern times any unwarranted deployments on American soil absent true emergencies, are now asked to patrol American streets for inexplicable reasons and without a clear objective, an action that, in my view, disrespects the men and women of our military and their talents.

At bottom, any legal constraints on the executive have been set aside in favor of achieving preferred policy objectives and a robust view of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

As I had written before, the executive is free to vigorously pursue its goals within constitutional limits, but in its constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” it must work with Congress to achieve its aims. With the same political party controlling the two political branches, this would seem quite achievable, right? Wouldn’t Congress jump at the opportunity to police its own realm (i.e., lawmaking) while working to advance common policy goals with the executive?

Yet Congress is silent. It has refused to protect its own institutional prerogative as the most powerful branch in our constitutional system and, instead, has favored subservience to the executive. Examples are abound. Article I of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to set tariffs and appropriate funds. It can create and eliminate federal agencies. But as the executive exercises unilateral control over these areas, Congress has acquiesced.

This leads us to the third branch, the federal judiciary. Their overall record is mixed. Over 300 cases challenging the federal government’s actions are pending in the courts. So far, judges in 27 cases ruled against the government. When these matters reach the U.S Supreme Court, many times in the form of emergency applications to halt lower court rulings against the government, the government has prevailed in 18 out of 25 appeals.

Lately, when the Supreme Court issues its rulings on emergency applications, which are preliminary in nature, the Court has repeatedly declined to explain its decisions. Naturally, this has caused frustration not only for the public, but also for lower court judges themselves who are left with the unenviable task to somehow divine the will of the Supreme Court from rulings that are merely several sentences long.

Ultimately, I think the jury is out on whether the federal judiciary (particularly the Supreme Court) can meaningfully check the executive and set the boundaries of lawful conduct. Some recent rulings from the Supreme Court are troubling, especially - in my view - its most recent decision in Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo temporarily pausing a lower court order that prohibited federal immigration enforcement agents from stopping individuals solely based on, among other things, apparent race and ethnicity, and whether individuals spoke English with an accent.

Beyond government, our public discourse has reached a feverish pitch. A recent Pew poll suggests that “Republican and Democratic voters not only disagree on plans and policies, but also cannot agree on basic facts.” The recent horrific killing of Charlie Kirk, a prominent young leader on the right, has shocked our political system and, unfortunately, represents one of too many instances of political violence in modern times.

Despite the numerous challenges, I remain hopeful that the American experiment will continue. This Nation navigated through dark times before, and my earnest hope is that the current moment is a mere blip in the long of arc of history. Unlike so many other nations, no common heritage binds us here in the United States. We are a pluralistic country with ancestors hailing from all over the globe. Instead, we are bound by certain fundamental principles, most of which are embodied by our founding documents. The power of the government, for example, is derived from the consent of the people. All of us are created inherently equal to each other. Each and every one of us enjoy the unalienable right to life and liberty, and we have every right to pursue happiness.

Though I am hopeful, it certainly isn’t enough to wait for a better day. Neither we nor our elected officials can sit idle. The moment demands our engagement and our attention. For starters, Congress should act. For the rest of us, voting will be vital. This year, New York City and the states of New Jersey and Virginia will hold critical elections this fall. All members of the U.S. House of Representatives and a third of the U.S. Senate will be on the ballot in 2026.

Beyond voting, talk to your neighbors. Engage your local, state, and federal representatives. You would be surprised to learn how excited elected officials are to hear from their constituents.

I think we can keep our republic. We just need to act.

In the weeks since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, we’ve witnessed an onslaught of executive actions. They have included drastic funding cuts, massive reductions of the federal workforce, the use of criminal prosecutorial power to advance policy objectives, and the curtailment of constitutional rights. That’s just the start. The criticisms of these actions are abundant. Setting aside the stark policy differences, much of the remaining pushback cites principles of democracy and, especially those from the legal world like the American Bar Association, the rule of law.

But for so many, the concepts of democracy and rule of law are too intangible. What do they even mean for ordinary Americans? In 2024, the Democratic ticket made democracy a major theme of their presidential campaign. It fell flat. Today, the sky isn’t falling. Most folks can still freely go about their lives, whether it’s working, raising their children, spending time with family and friends, and the rest.

When critics accuse President Trump for not following the right process, a key component to the rule of law, to achieve his policy objectives, I suspect many in response will say that he’s simply cutting through meaningless bureaucracy and red tape. The plurality of voters selected the president, so the argument will go, and he has the prerogative to pursue his political agenda, period. And to be honest, though the president’s job approval rating is underwater, the public may be expressing a level of acquiescence. One poll captured a positive net approval of the president’s performance, and he is enjoying a higher approval rating at the start of his second term compared to his first.

The recent day-to-day machinations of Washington, thus, appear to hold little interest with the rest of the country. For now, that is.

When it comes to defining democracy and the rule of law, and persuading our fellow Americans of their importance, we need to return to fundamentals. High-minded rhetoric will not do. Not only should we break down the principles, but also demonstrate the harm when those principles are violated.

We can start with the presidency. The voters went to the polls to hire someone to carry out the duties of the president. What are those duties? Luckily, the job description for the presidency can be found in our founding charter, Article II of the United States Constitution. Out of the three branches of the federal government, the president heads (or, as the U.S. Supreme Court would posit, wholly encompasses) the executive branch. Though the office has many responsibilities, one line sums up the job: the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Democracy is respecting the people’s choice on how they wish to govern themselves and who they select to carry those responsibilities. The voters selected a president to faithfully execute the laws of this Nation for four years. They selected their representatives in Congress to make the law according to their best judgment, and the voters can ultimately hold their representatives accountable periodically at the polls if they fail to deliver.

The rule of law gives democracy — the people’s choice — meaning. When a president deviates from faithfully executing the law and, instead, acts to contravene the law, those actions are a disservice to the voters who hired the president in the first instance. If the president wants to cut funding for projects that he dislikes even though Congress appropriated funds for them, he ought to persuade Congress to halt the funding. If the president wants to change how a constitutional provision works, he should convince Congress on the merits of his proposal and then persuade 38 states to agree as well.

Democracy and the rule of law need not be so lofty. They are real foundations that undergird American life. We elect our leaders to perform certain jobs for the benefit of the Nation, not to accumulate power for its own sake. When they disregard their core job responsibilities, our leaders also disregard the ones that matter the most: the people.

Subscribe now

Share

Hours before President Joe Biden announced that he would no longer seek reelection, I tested positive for Covid. Self-isolating and with mild symptoms, I knew that I needed to rest to expedite my recovery. Once I heard the news, I couldn’t.

Instead, my mind raced back nearly 19 years ago. I was a law student starting my third and final year. Young and ambitious, I secured a coveted seat in a small, advanced seminar class on constitutional law taught by then-Senator Biden. I was thrilled, but also intimidated. As the son of immigrants from Bangladesh who grew up in Philly, I had never spent any significant amount of time with a prominent individual, let alone a sitting United States Senator who ran for president and shaped countless major events on the national and international stage.

Soon enough, my anxiety subsided. The senator was warm and engaging. As much as he lectured, he also listened (even to me). He convinced us, a group of about a dozen or so students, that what we had to say mattered. We discussed major constitutional law cases and current events. Senator Biden shared with us deeply personal stories about his life and family. Though our class was only scheduled for a few hours every Saturday morning, we would routinely stay for hours beyond our end time, eager to continue our conversations.

While he was my professor for only one semester, he shared a lifetime of lessons that have guided me since, both personally and professionally. His compassion and empathy would stay with me.

Fast forward to now, a cascade of thoughts erupted when I heard the news. The memories of a diligent and attentive teacher, the arc of a public servant that led him to the White House, and his unwavering desire to make our lives better. President Biden’s decision was emblematic of the professor I knew and what we all have known. He committed his life in service to the Nation, and when faced with a difficult choice, the President chose the path that, in his judgment, would best serve the interests of the American people. Regardless of one’s political views, it is a standard that ought to govern every single leader in this country.

Long after this election cycle, I’ll likely forget the streams of commentary that preceded the President’s decision. Instead, I’ll remember a small classroom filled with students with their whole careers ahead of them and a professor who sought to make a difference.