Jonathan P. Baird

With so much news going on, one story did not receive the coverage it should have. The Biden administration agreed to settle an ACLU class action lawsuit, Ms. L v ICE, that will prohibit any future administration from separating immigrant families at the border through 2031. It also allows parents the ability to apply for expedited asylum consideration, behavioral health care and housing support. The settlement did not include monetary reparation.

Back in 2018 an estimated 5500 immigrant families were separated at the border while the family separation policy was in effect. The Trump administration zero-tolerance policy referred parents for prosecution for illegally crossing the border. The government would not allow children and parent to be detained together. Immigration officials sent the children to large warehouses that served as juvenile centers.

The cruelty of this Trump policy was appalling. Babies and toddlers were literally ripped from their parent’s arms. The youngest child separated from their family was only six months old. Even if a mother was breast-feeding, it did not matter. This was up there on the heartlessness scale.

The separated families were not told if they would ever see each other again. Many children and parents did not see each other for over a year or more. The trauma inflicted on these children will be life-long and emotional and cognitive damage are a certain result.

While many of the separated families have been successfully reunited, according to the ACLU, up to 1000 children are still not with their parents. The government deported many of the parents and utterly failed to keep track of the scattered families. The disregard and contempt for this population could not be more apparent.

Lee Gelernt, the ACLU’s lead counsel in the case, pinpointed this reality:

“The Court said it appears that the Trump administration tracked property more diligently than they tracked the whereabouts of little children. We have been searching for years for these families.”

The settlement requires the government to continue to help reunify families, including finding parents and guardians who were previously deported. The government committed to bringing them back to the U.S.. Before separating families, immigration officials now must have evidence of child abuse or they must be able to show the parent committed a serious crime. Under the settlement, the families’ lawyers would have to be notified and they could challenge a separation.

Even if they were previously denied, separated families would be able to apply for asylum. That alone is a big deal. Seeking asylum from persecution is a human right that is protected under American law. The law dates back to the aftermath of the Holocaust when the United Nations ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Successive administrations have tried to restrict the right to asylum. While the Trump administration set a new low, the Biden administration has, to some extent, continued Trump-era policies. When their bogus Title 42 expired earlier this year, the Biden administration enacted a new policy that prohibited asylum for almost everyone who traveled through another country on their way to the U.S..Unless you were from Mexico, the new policy acted as a bar. Many asylum seekers are from south of Mexico.

Under U.S. and international law, asylum seekers should at least get a fair hearing.The Biden administration has thrown up additional roadblocks for asylum seekers. They created a cell phone app as an exclusive means for how most people can make an appointment at a port of entry for an asylum interview.

The app, CBP One, has proven very difficult to access. The asylum seeker needs a relatively new smartphone, a reliable internet connection and proficiency in one of the languages the app supports. Not surprisingly, many asylum seekers do not have up-to-date cellphones and getting through is a virtual impossibility.

Unable to obtain a CPB One appointment, they remain stranded in extremely dangerous circumstances where they are targets for kidnapping, violence and sexual assault. Parts of Mexico near the border are notorious for violence against immigrants. Many have been killed or have died of medical neglect.

No subject has been more demagogued than immigration. The MAGA movement and Donald Trump have poisoned the well by spewing hateful and dehumanizing lies about immigrants. They invoke great replacement and the fear that dark-skinned hordes are, to use Tucker Carlson’s words, replacing legacy Americans.

Republican governors like Ron DeSantis have treated immigrants like props in his political stunts, flying them to Martha’s Vineyard on false pretenses. You have government officials preying on vulnerable people who only want to have a better life.

Just to be clear on this, the United States is suffering from a worker shortage. There has been an increase in immigrants seeking entry into the United States. The demagoguery is the racism that sees immigrants who can contribute to the economy as a threat to white Americans. America has always been a melting pot and the current wave of immigration is no different than earlier waves. Immigrants are needed by our economy and should be welcomed.

Former President Trump has refused to rule out re-instituting the family separation policy if he is re-elected. While Trump may have no respect for the law, if he does want to bring back family separation, he will have to contend with Ms. L v ICE, which remains in effect for eight more years.

Nothing, though, can erase the awful trauma and harm the Trump administration has inflicted on innocent children.

In November, the Supreme Court will be hearing a case, United States v Rahimi, about whether the Second Amendment invalidates a federal law which prohibits possession of a firearm by an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, invalidated the law on its face holding that people subject to a restraining order have a constitutional right to possess guns.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that what the Fifth Circuit did in this case was nuts. A court had already determined that the abuser is “a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner”. The sexist disregard for the safety of women is truly shocking. It is part of a more general societal failure to reckon with public safety issues connected to guns.

I had my own personal revelation around guns and domestic violence. A number of years back when I worked as a lawyer for New Hampshire Legal Assistance, I spent almost two years handling domestic violence-related cases. Often the cases were civil restraining orders seeking protection from abuse at a final hearing. I also handled some custody and divorce cases where domestic violence factored into the case.

Doing the cases, I saw enough to become aware that among abusers, there was a subset who relied on weapons to intimidate and to exercise control over their victims. Often the abusers had extensive arsenals. They would wear weapons on their person that included guns and knives fitted into shoulder and ankle holsters.

There was an unmistakeable message to the domestic violence victim. “Do as I say or else”. Death threats, threats of bodily harm and threats to kidnap children are all too common.

At the risk of seeming naive, discovery of this dark side of the domestic violence universe surprised me. You don’t see it because the abusers typically operate behind closed doors. In spite of all the domestic violence education that has transpired over the last 50 years, the extent of the guns/domestic violence confluence remains obscured and under-appreciated.

Guns back up the threats and emotional abuse and they act as the enforcer. They are an essential tool in the domestic violence purveyor toolkit.

Every month 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner. Over 4.5 million women have reported being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner. Access to a gun makes it five times more likely that a woman will die at the hands of a domestic abuser. In nearly half of mass shootings with four of more people killed, the perpetrator shot an intimate partner or a family member.

The public health dimension of the guns/domestic violence confluence has been hidden. It is an enormous public health emergency. I would suggest that the gun industry and gun rights organizations are playing a role similar to the role the tobacco industry played with cigarettes and fossil fuel companies are playing with climate change. They merchandize doubt in an attempt to muddy public understanding.

Interestingly, In the Fifth Circuit decision in Rahimi, one of the judges, James Ho, in a separate concurrence, raised the classic canard. In his opinion, Ho argues that courts should be skeptical of a law seeking to disarm people subject to a domestic violence restraining order because women alleging abuse use restraining orders as a tactical leverage device to secure favorable rulings on other issues like custody, child support and exclusion from marital residence.

No doubt that happens but Ho uses it to minimize the very real threat to women the Court’s ruling represents. The Fifth Circuit entirely misses the sexist background to guns and domestic violence. The dynamic of power, control and victimization is not understood. Women have never had equal rights, particularly around domestic abuse.

To fully appreciate the depth of the sexism, American history must be visited. For a good part of our history, husbands had a legal right to subject their wife to physical violence. It was called chastisement if a wife defied her husband’s authority. A husband could corporally punish his wife as long as he didn’t inflict permanent injury upon her. Really until the 1970’s and the advance of feminism, wife-beating was considered a private matter between husband and wife. The state did not intervene.

Women’s lesser rights in the personal realm fit in with the broader historical pattern of men having rights and women having lesser or no rights. Ironically, the Fifth Circuit was blind to this sexist history even though they use their own version of history to justify the outcome in Rahimi.

The Fifth Circuit found that gun laws must fall unless the government can prove the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That court couldn’t find historical analogies in early American history. They found that early laws that disarmed people considered to be dangerous were not on point. The Fifth Circuit’s analysis relied on an interpretation of the law mandated by an earlier Supreme Court case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association , Inc. v Bruen.

The crazy thing is that the Fifth Circuit did not consider how much American society and firearm technology have changed since the 18th century. A misguided originalism leaves out all we have learned about domestic violence. Nor did it consider the massive proliferation of guns which did not exist in early America.

Zackey Rahimi is not exactly the ideal defendant. Between December 2020 and January 2021, he was involved in five shootings. He had threatened his then-girlfriend with a gun and was seen dragging her into his car at a public parking lot before firing a gun at an eyewitness. He pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm while under a restraining order.

Now it is up to the Supreme Court to decide this case. A decision to uphold the Fifth Circuit’s ruling would potentially re-arm thousands of batterers who had committed court-found abuse. It is hard to imagine something more dangerous.

I expect that many Americans remain uncomfortable with the notion that Donald Trump and his MAGA movement are fascist. The word “fascist” is a political football. Both sides of the political spectrum toss it around and use the term to describe their adversaries.

Given that reality, rather than arguing about the correctness of the term, it makes sense to look at what political developments are most worrisome to our democracy. One development is the number of voices on the political Right who are calling for a dictatorship because of their dark view of American society.

Maybe readers will remember two years back when on FOX Tucker Carlson was singing the praises of the Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban. Carlson spent a week in Hungary and he portrayed Hungary as a conservative paradise. Orban has turned Hungary into what he calls an “illiberal state”.

Moving to control much of the country’s media, Orban has followed a model often employed by authoritarians. Stocking the courts with loyalists, he gerrymandered the voting system to make it much harder for opposition parties to win. He floated apocalyptic conspiracy theories about dark forces undermining the will of the people, invoking a version of great replacement theory. He demonized George Soros and immigrants, promoting antisemitism and xenophobia. Orban wants to remain in power indefinitely.

Support for a strongman solution in the Orban tradition has been gaining ground on the American Right. Kevin Slack, a right wing author and intellectual from the ultraconservative Hillsdale College in Michigan has written that the “New Right now often discusses a Red Caesar, by which, it means a leader whose post-Constitutional rule will restore the strength of his people”.

In the Guardian, Jason Wilson writes that a theory called Caesarism as an authoritarian solution to the claimed collapse of the U.S. republic has been advocated in podcasts and house organs of the far right especially those associated with the Claremont Institute. Probably two of the most well-known individuals associated with Claremont are former Trump advisors John Eastman and Peter Anton.

The Claremont scholars who represent a variety of extreme conservative perspectives do generally see the U.S. as a decadent failed state. Anton has written the “U.S. peaked around 1965”. The Claremont scholars see the U.S. as dominated by the radical left. While that would no doubt come as a surprise to those on the left, the hard right sees a stew of woke ideology, transgenderism, anti-white racism, open borders and an overreaching federal government out to take guns away.

Part of the extreme right’s loss of faith in democracy has been their inability to win elections. They see no path to power through democratic elections. In particular, Donald Trump’s loss in 2020 has fueled feelings of desperation and radicalized some of his followers. The argument is that only a Red Caesar can cut through deep state dysfunction and constitutional gridlock to impose order.

Donald Trump is the putative Red Caesar. As the Republican frontrunner, he is seen by the extreme right as the potential strongman who can seize control to stop the great replacement and restore white and Christian supremacy. He will make the argument that he alone is capable of fixing the chaos.

There is a religious dimension to the Caesarism. A May 2022 University of Maryland poll found that 61% of Republicans favored “officially declaring the United States to be a Christian nation”. Christian evangelicals have been a critical part of the Trump base in 2016 and 2020. The Christian authoritarian trend has been reflected in retired general Michael Flynn’s Reawaken America Tour which has emphasized there is a spiritual and political war going on in America.

Trump’s erratic behavior of late is noteworthy. As the pressure has built on him because of his various criminal and civil prosecutions, his words have taken a noticeably violent turn. Trump said former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley committed
“treason” and suggested he be executed.. He said Jack Smith was “deranged and a psycho”. He has called on police to shoot shoplifters. He said immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”.

The historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat has said “violence is Trump’s brand”. She has written:

“Since the fascist years, authoritarians have used propaganda and their personality cults to change the perception of violence among their followers. The goal is to remove hesitation about tolerating or participating in violence against one’s compatriots by presenting that violence as necessary and even morally righteous.”

Democracy is a system where political parties must accept the decision of the voters. Trump is operating off a different paradigm. He says he will prosecute Joe Biden as well as judges and prosecutors who have held him accountable. He threatened MSNBC calling them “the enemy of the people”, intimating action against a free press. This Red Caesar is training his base away from democracy and towards normalizing political violence. He is training his followers to see violence in a positive light.

It is entirely predictable that Trump will be talking about how the 2024 election will be stolen from him. In fact, without any evidence, he already has been saying that. Any election he does not win is, by definition, rigged. If he does lose again, I am wondering about the next January 6. Oddsmakers would not be betting on a peaceful post-election period.

All who believe in democracy and the rule of law must take the Red Caesar threat seriously. Authoritarians do not see failure as an option. Authoritarians typically leave office involuntarily.

Trump’s difficult circumstances dictate that he is unlikely to exit without a bitter fight. When you are running to stay out of jail, you are not likely to play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. The threat is real.

The stories about corruption at the U.S. Supreme Court keep mushrooming. We first heard about Justice Clarence Thomas accepting expensive gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow that Thomas never reported. After Thomas became a justice, Crow became his “friend”. Then we heard about Justice Samuel Alito and his unreported trip with billionaire, Paul Singer, an individual who has had business before the Court. Alito hasn’t recused himself.

I think the recent story about Justice Thomas and the Koch network gets closer to the deeper dimension of the corruption. In microcosm, it exposes the process of how right wing billionaires buy their brand of justice.

On January 25, 2018, the Koch brothers flew Thomas to their annual member donor summit on a Gulfstream G-200 jet. We still don’t know who paid for that trip.The event is a weekend of strategizing and high dollar fundraising.

The Kochs used Thomas as a fundraising draw. Donors were promised that if they paid one hundred thousand dollars or more, they will be able to attend an elite event where Thomas would speak. Thomas never reported the Koch event or the travel on his annual federal financial disclosure form.

Charles Koch (the remaining live Koch brother) is one of the 25 richest people in the world. He is worth an estimated $64 billion. His network has raised a fortune from other wealthy donors used to support a variety of ultra-conservative causes. The network raised over $700 million in 2021. More recent data is not yet available.

You might call this money the Billionaire Defense Fund. Clearly some of the money has been directed at Thomas and winning him over as Thomas has a weakness for the luxury lifestyle. This is the pay to play, purchasing Justice Thomas. The gifts are not a straight-up bribe but they are influencing.

Koch met Thomas at Bohemian Grove, a secretive annual all-men’s retreat held in Northern California. Thomas has been a frequent attendee and he met Koch there. Bohemian Grove is like a fraternity party for super-rich and powerful people. Over the last two decades, Thomas often stayed with the Kochs and Harlan Crow.

There are at least three ways Thomas violated the law and has been compromised ethically. As explained by law professor Richard Painter, Thomas violated financial disclosure rules; he violated laws prohibiting judges from participating in partisan fundraising; and he hasn’t recused from cases where he should have. Chief Justice Roberts has been looking the other way but these violations are so egregious that Roberts should at least demand Thomas recuse himself from the upcoming case, Loper Bright v Raimondo.

The case raises the matter of Chevron deference. Without getting too into the legal weeds, the 1984 Chevron v NRDC case gave wide deference to federal administrative agencies in how agencies’ laws, rules and regulations are interpreted. Thomas himself was a very strong supporter of Chevron deference, writing an opinion in 2005 defending the power of administrative agencies.

Very strangely for someone who is almost always ideologically unmovable, Thomas’s view has now flipped. After hanging out with the Kochs who see Chevron deference as an abomination, Thomas completely reversed course. He is now on record opposing deference to administrative agencies just like his corporate benefactors. Koch network staff attorneys are asking the Court to reverse this almost 40 year old precedent.

A major part of the Koch agenda is what is often called “deconstructing the administrative state”. The Koch network has been dedicated to reining in and limiting the power of federal agencies to issue regulations in many areas of the law.

Whether it is the environment, worker rights, consumer rights or worker health and safety, the Koch network wants to obliterate federal regulation. They want no entity to interfere with their corporate profit-making agenda, their prerogative to pollute, exploit workers or push out green house gases as much as they like.

Based on his behavior, Thomas’s impartiality is in serious question. And Loper Bright is not the only case where a justice should be recusing. Similar questions are raised for Justice Alito in a tax case where one of the lawyers involved, David Rivkin, had interviewed him for a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. Rivkin and Alito are pals. Rivkin is also counsel to Leonard Leo of Federalist Society fame on the matter of Leo’s role in facilitating gifts of free transportation and lodging Alito accepted from Paul Singer.

Leonard Leo is the man behind the curtain in understanding what has happened to the Supreme Court. As the key Federalist Society operative, he greased the relationship between Thomas, the Kochs and Crow. Leo, who is close to Thomas, actually arranged Thomas’s appearances at the Koch donor events.

The deeper dimension in this story is how it illustrates the scheme by right wing billionaires to capture the Supreme Court. No one has spoken about this more forcefully than Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Because the radical right could not achieve their goals openly, they resort to unlimited dark money donations, phony front groups, and a veil of secrecy to hide how the Court has been captured.

Their agenda is climate denialist, pro-elite, deregulatory and anti-democracy.

On the positive, the Senate Judiciary Committee is now investigating the allegations that Supreme Court justices accepted and failed to disclose lavish gifts received from their billionaire benefactors. The Senate Finance Committee is also investigating Federal tax compliance with the undisclosed gifts.

There are also increasing calls for justices with conflicts of interest to recuse themselves from cases where justices have ties to billionaires with business before the Court. More than 40 U.S. watchdog groups have called on Chief Justice Roberts to force Thomas and Alito to recuse where they are conflicted. 50 House Democrats wrote Justice Thomas an open letter asking him to recuse from Loper Bright.

It would appear that Thomas and Alito are immune to shame. They have moved beyond the appearance of impropriety to something worse. The Court’s legitimacy problem is anything but over.

Lately I have been reading Naomi Klein’s brilliant new book, Doppelgänger. It offers some acute analysis about the increasing role of conspiracy theories in our lives, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Without question, more people have been falling down all kinds of rabbit holes.

Conspiracy theories around Jews are nothing new but I have found it impossible to ignore recent words from two prominent individuals, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Probably like many Jewish people I try to ignore the poison. One long-standing tendency in the Jewish world is thinking that it will be worse to call more attention to hateful comments. I am of a different mind. I worry more about allowing antisemitic trash to go unchallenged.

So often conspiracy theories end up with Jewish villains. Invariably, Jews get pegged as the cause of the world’s evils. Compared to the years when I was growing up, I have been genuinely surprised by the rejuvenation of antisemitic ideas and the number of antisemites now coming out of the woodwork.

Musk, the richest capitalist in the world, has been on an antisemitic tear, tweeting and accusing Jews of controlling mass media and financial markets. Not surprisingly, he has posted a series of tweets attacking the Jewish billionaire philanthropist, George Soros, who he compared to Jewish X-men supervillain, Magneto. Musk has claimed Soros wanted to “erode the very fabric of civilization” and that he “hates humanity”. Why Musk has chosen to focus on Soros is a good question.

Soros has been a favorite target of neo-nazis and white supremacists who see him as behind the great replacement. He is the modern-day equivalent of the Rothschilds, extraordinarily rich Jews who can be scapegoated. Musk is indulging a hateful stereotype about ultra-wealthy Jews who can allegedly control events and buy inordinate political power. His comments follow the example of Hungary’s leader Viktor Orban.

Musk went on to attack the Anti-Defamation League or ADL which, by any measure, has been an important voice opposing antisemitism and racism since it was founded in 1913. On September 4, without any proof, he blamed the ADL for a 60% loss in advertising revenue. ADL has opposed Musk’s decision to allow hate speech and white supremacist accounts on the website. They and eight other groups, the Stop Hate for Profit coalition, had called for an advertising boycott of Twitter/X.

Musk has repeatedly threatened a defamation case against the ADL, saying that they had cut X’s value in half. He has said ADL was trying to kill the platform by “falsely accusing it and me of being antisemitic”.

Laying the blame on Jews for your own failure is hardly novel. He is playing on antisemitic mythology that powerful Jewish organizations are manipulating behind the scenes in unseen ways. To quote the writer, Mike Rothschild:

“I love the implication that the erratic management, mass layoffs, incoherent moderation, destruction of verification, decimated engineering staff, serial unbanning of racists and crumbling infrastructure had nothing to do with Twitter losing half its value. Nope, just Jews.”

Musk could not leave the ADL alone, advancing the notion that the ADL has fostered antisemitism by calling it out so aggressively. He, the free speech absolutist, posted the idea of a poll on whether to suspend ADL from X. He tweeted ADL has been “hijacked by the woke mind virus”.

White nationalists and other far-right extremists joined in online with a hashtag campaign #BanTheADL. This might have gone unnoticed but Musk “liked” a tweet by Keith Woods, an Irish white nationalist and self-described “raging antisemite” who was a leader of the campaign. Musk then engaged with Wood online. This opened the antisemitic floodgates. Many viciously antisemitic posts followed.

Twitter has been a cesspool of racism and antisemitism long before Musk took over and renamed it X. Under his leadership, the hate has moved to a whole new level. Research shows that since Musk took over in October 2022, the volume of English language antisemitic tweets has more than doubled.

In defending the ADL against Musk’s attacks, I would not give that organization a pass. Probably like many progressives, I am far more comfortable with its civil rights advocacy than its lobbying for Israel. The present Netanyahu government is the worst government in Israel’s history as it is based on an alliance with the most racist, sexist and backwards elements in Israeli society. A good part of Israel would agree with me as evidenced by the massive demonstrations that have been ongoing in Israel.

As for Donald Trump, he used the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, to blast “liberal Jews” who he said “had voted to destroy America and Israel”. So apparently there are good Jews who vote for him and bad Jews who don’t. Trump had said Jewish people who vote for Democrats are either “ignorant or disloyal”.

Jews must conform to this arbiter, someone who dines with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and “Death con 3 to the Jewish people” Kanye West. You never hear Trump criticize them.

For someone who says he is so pro-Israel, Trump has a peculiar habit of threatening American Jews. What does it mean when Trump says American Jews “have to get their act together before it is too late”. While Jews have generally voted more for Democrats since World War 2, there is a diversity of political opinion in the Jewish community. Why is Trump denying Jews the right to be diverse like every other community?

Trump is always conflating American Jews with Israelis, complaining that American Jews are ingrates, not appreciating all he has done. That conflation is antisemitic as it raises the spectre of dual loyalty. American Jews are not Israelis.

I would submit that Trump deliberately pushes the antisemitic rhetoric because he believes it is popular with his base. He and Musk are opening the door for the haters. They are like the 21st century equivalent of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh who were the antisemitic leaders of early 20th century America. They need to be called out and opposed.

There are periods in American history that don’t get much attention. One such period is the 1840’s-1850’s. Although it is not remembered now, there was an ongoing battle before the Civil War about the matter of fugitive slaves,

Enslaved black people risked their lives to flee their masters in the South. Slave catchers pursued the slaves-on-the-run across all state lines. Back then, fugitive slave laws were not on the side of the slaves.

The framers of the Constitution included a fugitive slave clause in the document in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. However, the framers tactfully and hypocritically left the word “slave” out of the Constitution. They wanted to avoid unsightly appearances. Also the South might not have joined the United States without the provision.

From the southern perspective, law-abiding citizens were obligated to return runaway slaves who were living in whatever state. Enforcement of the Clause was erratic and was left to the states. The federal government was too weak to intervene. Congress did pass a law in 1793, signed by President George Washington, designed to reinforce the rendition of fugitive slaves but it proved to be ineffective.

Some northern states passed “personal liberty” laws that created barriers to enforcement. They were not going along with any fugitive slave law. The historian Andrew Delbanco in his book The War Before the War has written that most runaways never made it out of the South. He explained that “chronic offenders were sometimes mutilated – tendons cut, faces branded – as warnings not to try again and to others not to try at all”.

In 1850, Congress weighed in with a compromise that sold out fugitive slaves. The United States was massively expanding west and questions arose about whether the westward expanse would include slavery. The North and South were deeply divided about slavery, fugitive slaves and whether slavery should be allowed to expand.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a gift to white supremacy and made a mockery of judicial process. It denied habeas corpus, the right to challenge the legality of detention. Defendants were not allowed to testify in their own defense and jury trials were not allowed. The enslaved were not allowed to present exonerating evidence including evidence of beatings or rape.

If it was shown that defendants belonged to a slave owner according to the state fled, they were ordered back to slavery. Free black people were also terrified of the Act as they feared removal on the false pretext that they had belonged to a slave owner. The book and movie, Twelve Years a Slave, tells such a story where even free black people could be wrongfully shanghaied into servitude.

Stories about audacious slave escapes captivated 19th century America before the Civil War. There were anti-slavery speaking tours through the northern states by ex-slaves who had fled the South or border states. They acted as consciousness-raising events for the abolitionist movement and tremendously propelled the anti-slavery cause.

In her wonderful book Master Slave Husband Wife, the writer Ilyon Woo tells some of these escape-to-freedom stories that deserve to be far better-known. Her story about two Georgia slaves, William and Ellen Craft, who escaped slavery in 1848 is a centerpiece of her book but the book presents a much broader panorama of lesser-known leaders in the anti-slavery struggle.

Many of the names are unknown but they were famous long ago. Why some stories survive and others disappear is a good question and a mystery.

The Crafts’ escape from slavery was highly inventive, carefully planned and brilliantly executed. Most slave escapes were from border states like Maryland, Virginia or Kentucky. Among the unusual things about the Crafts is that they had a 1000 mile journey north to Philadelphia from Georgia. They had to take trains and a steamboat. Their escape held the long distance record.

Being light-skinned, Ellen disguised herself as a high-class wealthy white man with a disability. Her husband William pretended to be her slave. As slaves, Ellen and William needed written passes just to move anywhere. Because they planned the escape around Christmas they were both able to get their owners to go along with a pass. This allowed them a short window to get away before their owners realized their absence. They faced some scary and unexpected contingencies on the trip.

Once they made it north to Pennsylvania, the Crafts connected with William Wells Brown, a leading light of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. He also had escaped slavery and was noted to be a superb story teller. They joined forces and spoke publicly together. Abolitionist newspapers like William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator carried word about the Crafts’ escape.

The Crafts and Brown spoke in Boston at Fanueil Hall and electrified the audience. They proved to be a powerful draw. They toured the north but by no means were they out of danger. Slave catchers were on their trail. They had close calls and decided they had to leave America. First sailing to Canada, they eventually made their way to England, Again they connected with William Wells Brown who also had moved to England and they continued their public speaking.

Along with Frederick Douglass, William Wells Brown stood out for his brilliance. He published his life story which repeatedly sold out publication. He spoke passionately to audiences of thousands.

The Crafts were ultimately able to meet goals they had set. Besides freedom, they achieved literacy and they were able to have a family of their own something they had been afraid to do in America. Ellen was able to see her mother again after the Civil War. The Crafts wrote a book in 1860 Running A Thousand Miles for Freedom. The book never sold that well probably because it was overshadowed by the Civil War.

Woo also tells the story of Henry “Box” Brown, He was called “Box” because he made his way to freedom after being mailed north in a box. He spent 27 hours in that box which was three feet long, two feet wide and two and a half feet high. He also made it to Philadelphia. “Box” Brown joined William Wells Brown, the Crafts and Douglass speaking out against slavery.

We are now 175 years since the Crafts’ escape. Too many Americans want to ban any truthful telling of Black history. The narrative of American history should include these heroes who inspired hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

Many commentators have remarked upon the multitude of lawyers intertwined inside the political and business dealings of Donald Trump. When Jack Smith indicted Trump in Washington D.C., at least five of his six co-conspirators were lawyers. These include John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Sidney Powell, Ken Chesebro and Rudy Giuliani. There are many others in the Trump orbit waiting in the wings who have also serviced the former president. It is an ever-expanding circle.

These lawyers were so enamored of Trump that they were willing to break the law on his behalf. They produced false documents, made unsubstantiated public claims, and had no hesitation in filing meritless litigation. If Trump could be kept in power, anything was justified.

The range of horrible behavior went from the truly unhinged to the creatively bonkers.

On the deranged scale I would place Sidney Powell at the extreme end with her talk of Hugo Chavez fixing voting machines. John Eastman is the less deranged opposite end of the spectrum with his theories about how others besides the voters can decide elections although his ideas are just as undemocratic.

Jeffrey Clark, the assistant former Attorney General and Trump’s rumored pick to become AG if Trump wins in 2024, was ready to invoke the Insurrection Act and use the military against American citizens who opposed Trump’s coup. Rudy Giuliani had no problem repeatedly defaming two innocent Black election workers who were on Trump’s radar.

Many Trump lawyers signed bogus complaints legitimizing false electors. You have to ask: why would so many lawyers conspire to strip millions of their right to have their votes counted? What has happened to a profession that will countenance this blatant misconduct?

It speaks to a sickness in the legal profession. Where are the lawyers and judges speaking up about the danger of fascism and authoritarianism represented by the MAGA movement? Maybe I have missed it but I have heard little from the American Bar Association or any judges. They are apparently making believe Trump’s coup attempt was normal and was business as usual.

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern describe “an obsession with pretending that evil deeds are not evil when done in the service of a paying customer”. They argue that “the right flank of the legal profession has adamantly refused to police itself and the legal profession as a whole has hardly raced to hold its most destructive and dangerous members to account”.

Where is the public condemnation from right wing lawyers like the Federalist Society for the insurrection and the attempt to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power? There is some but precious little. If Trump’s coup had been successful and democracy had been overthrown, these folks would have been lining up for jobs with the new Trump Administration. Amorality in the service of career advancement would have been the order of the day.

Law must be a check on authoritarian power. History shows the danger when lawyers and judges fail to respond to emerging fascism. In the 1930’s, German lawyers and judges might have opposed Hitler’s authority and the consolidation of fascism. They failed to do so. Even worse they collaborated and interpreted the law in a way that facilitated the Nazis’ ability to carry out their agenda.

There was a massive failure of professional ethics. In April 1933 when the German state ministry of justice suspended all Jewish judges, public prosecutors, district attorneys and law professors, there was no protest. The legal profession accommodated the Nazis.

Lawyers and judges were key collaborators with the fascist regime and provided a patina of legitimacy. The Nazis craved the appearance of legality. Admittedly opposition carried big risks but even from early on, the German legal profession made peace with the Nazis.

Fascism worships power above all and fascists want to use the machinery of democracy to subvert it. They believe in the power of the leader rather than the rule of law.

Ingo Muller, the author of Hitler’s Justice, says Hitler “detested lawyers as pen-pushers who filled whole volumes with tangled commands and prohibitions and always had their noses buried in ridiculous tomes”. He had no use for constitutions or statutes or anything that interfered with his complete freedom of action.

I would submit that the roots of corrosion in America’s legal profession run deep. It begins in law school. The extreme cost of school pushes many onto a corporate or big law firm trajectory. Law school is so unaffordable that it is hard to survive the debt without landing some kind of high-paying job. Student loan payments are too much. Jobs like Legal Aid or Public Defender are very hard to swing without a significant other to foot bills.

Powerful law firms are often closely aligned with serving the rich. They are the high-paying clients. Law ends up serving the needs of the 1% which is warping. The needs of the 1% are vastly different than the broader needs of society. Lawyers end up doing nothing about climate change, economic inequality, racism or sexism. They mostly are about making rich people richer.

Of course there are many lawyers who are on more independent tracks and who do wonderful things representing their clients. There are solo practitioners, public interest, pro bono, and many small firms who zealously represent their clients.. The profession is diverse but the power of corporate America dominates the marketplace.

Money dictates why so many cannot retain lawyers. Overwhelmingly, people cannot afford that expense. What does it say about a profession that is out of reach for most people? I would note that over the last decade, to its discredit, the legal profession has become less welcoming to people of color.

Over the last 40 years, we have seen the emergence of the Federalist Society and law firms funded lavishly by right wing billionaires. They have created many opportunities for law students and lawyers who are in tune with the right wing agenda. Those willing to play ball can reap extravagant rewards.

Ideological loyalty has become a credential, not a liability. Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are all exemplars of the Federalist Society pipeline. The Federalist Society serves as a gravy train for those aligned with that ideological project. Judge positions, clerkships and job opportunities all follow for those who will serve their 1% masters. The idea of equal justice under law has been shelved and gets lip service only.

Cardozo Law Professor Deborah Pearlstein writes that the Office of Professional Responsibility, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, makes far fewer ethics investigations than it did in the 1990’s. By all appearances, ethical violations have been downgraded in the profession. Certainly the behavior of the Supreme Court reflects the decline of professional ethics as the Court enforces no standards. Professor Pearlstein argues:

“The Trump case shows lawyers not only failing to make sure their government clients operate within the bounds of our democratic system but stretching to help those clients craft ways to subvert it.”

Very few Trump lawyers have faced any consequences for their misconduct. Linn Wood has had his law license “retired”. Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman are facing possible disbarment. Jenna Ellis received a public censure in Colorado for making misrepresentations on national TV and on Twitter. So far many other Trump lawyers have escaped any discipline. They have apparently concluded that making arguments that subvert democracy carries minimal risk.

The record of the profession policing itself is terrible. The problem with lawyers is not just greed or classism. It is their willingness to do the wrong thing, thinking there will be no consequences and that is too often the case.

September 11 marks the 50th anniversary of the military coup that overthrew Chile’s democratically-elected government led by Salvador Allende. It is the lesser known 9/11 but one that also had huge consequences. The coup, unleashed by Gen. Augusto Pinochet and the Chilean military, resulted in a bloodbath of murders, torture and disappearances.

Disappearances of those perceived as political opponents became the signature action of the military dictatorship. For many many years, family members could not find out if their missing relatives were alive or dead. Terror defined the Pinochet regime.

Chile’s present government just announced a national search for over 1000 people who went missing during the Pinochet years. In 1978, after some remains were discovered, Pinochet ordered the military to exhume hundreds of victims buried secretly around the country so they could be disposed of permanently. He ordered corpses to be incinerated or to be dumped in the ocean or volcanoes. Pinochet tried to remove all scraps of evidence.

In complete contrast, Allende’s election to the Chilean presidency in 1970 was a hopeful watershed moment. For new leftists of my generation, the Chilean revolution left an indelible mark.

Before that, the conventional wisdom had been that no socialist could be democratically elected president of a country. Cold War propaganda still held a powerful hold and right wing parties hammered that theme. Allende and his Popular Unity government overturned the mythology that it was impossible to build socialism through peaceful democratic means.

Allende had been a perennial candidate, running for the presidency four times. Before he won he used to joke that his epitaph would be “Here lies the next President of Chile”.

He became the first democratically elected socialist leader in Latin America. Since he was a young person, Allende had dedicated his life to serving those living in what he called “subhuman conditions”. He was a physician, focused on public health. Earlier in his life he played a key role in creating Chile’s social security and national health systems.

Because of the negative stereotypes about socialism it is important to acknowledge that under his presidency there were no human rights abuses. There was absolute freedom of assembly and the press.

Before 1970, Chile reflected the massive economic inequality that characterized so much of Latin America. A small number of the super wealthy owned everything. Two predatory U.S. corporations owned the huge copper mines. The majority of Chileans desperately wanted agricultural reform and favored nationalizing the mines.

Allende’s election in 1970 led to a significant redistribution of income and services to the poorest members of society. According to the writer Ariel Dorfman, Allende’s priorities included:

“..a half-liter of milk daily for every child; cabins erected by the ocean so workers could vacation with their families (most had never seen the Pacific before); the acknowledgment of indigenous identities and languages; the publication of millions of inexpensive books that were sold at newspaper kiosks; and major advances in health, affordable public housing, education and child care.”

The U.S. government feared Allende’s example of popular socialists winning a democratic election. To this day, the American role in the overthrow of the Allende government is poorly understood but because of the declassification of government documents much more is now known. President Nixon and his national security advisor Henry Kissinger were unalterably opposed to Allende.

When they were unable to secure electoral success for the candidates they lavishly funded, they opted to support a military coup. Kissinger famously said:

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

After Allende won the presidency in 1970, the U.S. operation was about discrediting Allende’s government through black propaganda. The CIA hoped to destabilize the Chilean government and they used an economic blockade to make the economy scream. They also tried to enlist leaders of the Chilean military to support a coup.

There had been a long tradition of the military being neutral and after Allende’s 1970 election, the army was not interested in overthrowing the government. The CIA sent machine guns and agents and helped to finance the assassination of Gen. Rene Schneider, the head of the army. Schneider was maintaining neutrality and the CIA saw people like that as obstacles who needed to be removed.

In spite of all the CIA efforts, Allende became more popular and his coalition received 45% of the vote in 1973 which was a 10% increase in his share of the vote since 1970. At that point, the Chilean military led by Pinochet turned against democracy. The military coup of September 11, 1973 led to a reign of terror that lasted 17 years. There were thousands of extrajudicial disappearances and executions. Pinochet’s military abolished all civil liberties, Congress and political parties.

Nixon and Kissinger had their fingerprints all over support for Pinochet. Even after Pinochet became a human rights pariah, Kissinger with his insidious realpolitik, backed the monster. He told the ambassador to Chile “Stop it with the human rights lectures”.

Those who are especially interested in the events around Chile’s coup might want to check out the great Costa-Gavras movie “Missing” made in 1982 starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek.

Pinochet went on to create what the historian Peter Kornbluh called a “Southern Cone Murder Inc”. He and other Latin American military dictators organized an international death squad operation called Operation Condor targeting enemies in Europe and around the world. The diplomat Orlando Letelier and his colleague Ronni Moffitt were two famous victims assassinated by car bomb in Washington D.C. in 1976.

The Chilean people ultimately voted Pinochet out of power in a plebiscite election on October 5, 1988. Pinochet was later arrested in 1998 and was held in Britain for 16 months for crimes against humanity. The British government ultimately released him on what it termed “humanitarian grounds”.

Back in the early 1970’s many Chileans believed democracy could never be destroyed. I think many Americans would now like to believe this as well about our democracy. The experience around the 2020 election and Trump’s insurrection show there is a continuing danger to our democracy. To quote Ariel Dorfman:

“The main lesson that the Chilean cataclysm bequeaths the U.S. is to never forget that the rights we take for granted are fragile and revocable, protected only by the unceasing, vigilant vigorous struggle of millions upon millions of ordinary citizens.”

If anything, American experience shows both the fragility and revocability of our rights that Dorfman describes.