Columns

The Michigan Senate voted to authorize spending $1.9 billion on a program to support developers and their building projects. If enacted into law, the bill would be the first addition to the business subsidy scorecard in 2025. The program, advocates say, secures “transformational” buildings. But it has failed to deliver on its promise, and lawmakers ought to have higher standards before giving it more to spend on developer subsidies.

The Michigan Senate voted to authorize spending $1.9 billion on a program to support developers and their building projects. If enacted into law, the bill would be the first addition to the business subsidy scorecard in 2025. The program, advocates say, secures “transformational” buildings. But it has failed to deliver on its promise, and lawmakers ought to have higher standards before giving it more to spend on developer subsidies.

Developers who get a deal under the transformational brownfield program get to keep 50% of the income and sales taxes generated by the people who construct the building and live and work in it afterwards. Developers get to keep collecting those payments for up to 20 years afterward. They get to collect checks from the government, and the payments are called “tax capture.”

The setup obscures the costs of the program. It only gives money that the state supposedly would not have otherwise collected, the argument goes. Without the program, its defenders say, there would be no building to construct or taxes to collect.

Those who support the brownfield program are mistaken. Contractors work on many jobs throughout the year. People have options about where to work and live. When they work and live anywhere outside a brownfield property, their taxes go to the state government as normal. If they happen to live or work in a brownfield property, however, the government writes checks to its developer. This is a real cost for the state.

Lawmakers ought to be more careful when assessing their economic development programs. The recipients of taxpayer funding are not providing needed public services. They’re not providing charity, either. They are profit-seeking enterprises that collect money from other taxpayers. Lawmakers give them cash and other favors, ostensibly in hopes they will create broader economic benefits beyond the company’s bottom line. That other people will spend taxpayer’s money better than the taxpayer is an extraordinary claim that deserves scrutiny.

It is tough to assess the costs and benefits of the program when the state does not disclose its payments to recipients.

Lawmakers wanted the deals to have an effect on the broader economic outcomes of the places that get deals. They put “transformational” in the name of the program, after all. A city’s economic trends are not secret, so the effects of “transformational” programs can be tested.

There haven’t been many deals. There were only two before a 2023 program expansion. A series of buildings in Detroit got the bulk of the awards.

Did the transformational brownfield program yield something that transformed Detroit? No.

Detroit is still the poorest of the largest 50 cities in America, with 34.5% of its population in poverty. The next poorest city, Memphis, has a 24.0% poverty rate. The national average is 12.1%.

Detroit also had the highest unemployment rate of all big cities in 2024 at 9.1%. The next closest city is Fresno at 6.4%. The national average is 4.0%.

Lawmakers have yet to authorize any new business subsidies so far in 2025, though they are trying hard here at the end of the year. Spending $1.9 billion more on developer subsidies would be the only addition to the Mackinac Center business subsidy scorecard this year.

Programs that deliver taxpayer money to other people in the private economy in the name of economic development deserve scrutiny. Lawmakers should take a closer look at the costs and benefits of this bill than they have received so far.

—————

James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

As Americans gather for holiday celebrations, many will quietly thank the health care workers who keep their families and friends well: the ICU nurse who stabilized a grandparent, the doctor who adjusted a tricky prescription, the home health aide who ensures an aging relative can bathe and eat safely.

(THE CONVERSATION) — As Americans gather for holiday celebrations, many will quietly thank the health care workers who keep their families and friends well: the ICU nurse who stabilized a grandparent, the doctor who adjusted a tricky prescription, the home health aide who ensures an aging relative can bathe and eat safely.

Far fewer may notice how many of these professionals are foreign-born, and how immigration policies shaped in Washington today could determine whether those same families can get care when they need it in the future.

As an economist who studies how immigration influences economies, including health care systems, I see a consistent picture: Immigrants are a vital part of the health care workforce, especially in roles facing staffing shortages.

Yet current immigration policies, such as increased visa fees, stricter eligibility requirements and enforcement actions that affect legally present workers living with undocumented family members, risk eroding this critical workforce, threatening timely care for millions of Americans. The timing couldn’t be worse.

—————

A perfect storm: Rising demand, looming shortages

America’s health care system is entering an unprecedented period of strain. An aging population, coupled with rising rates of chronic conditions, is driving demand for care to new heights.

The workforce isn’t growing fast enough to meet those needs. The U.S. faces a projected shortfall of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036. Hospitals, clinics and elder-care services are expected to add about 2.1 million jobs between 2022 and 2032. Many of those will be front-line caregiving roles: home health, personal care and nursing assistants.

For decades, immigrant health care workers have filled gaps where U.S.-born workers are limited. They serve as doctors in rural clinics, nurses in understaffed hospitals and aides in nursing homes and home care settings.

Nationally, immigrants make up about 18% of the health care workforce, and they’re even more concentrated in critical roles. Roughly 1 in 4 physicians, 1 in 5 registered nurses and 1 in 3 home health aides are foreign-born.

State-level data reveals just how deeply immigrants are embedded in the health care system. Consider California, where immigrants account for 1 in 3 physicians, 36% of registered nurses and 42% of health aides. On the other side of the country, immigrants make up 35% of hospital staff in New York state. In New York City, they are the majority of health care workers, representing 57% of the health care workforce.

Even in states with smaller immigrant populations, their impact is outsized.

In Minnesota, immigrants are nearly 1 in 3 nursing assistants in nursing homes and home care agencies, despite being just 12% of the overall workforce. Iowa, where immigrants are just 6.3% of the population, relies on them for a disproportionate share of rural physicians.

These patterns transcend geography and partisan divides. From urban hospitals to rural clinics, immigrants keep facilities operational. Policies that reduce their numbers – through higher visa fees, stricter eligibility requirements or increased deportations – have ripple effects, closed hospital beds.

While health care demand soars, the pipeline for new health care workers could struggle to keep pace under current rules. Medical schools and nursing programs face capacity limits, and the time required to train new professionals – often a decade for doctors – means that there aren’t any quick fixes.

Immigrants have long bridged this gap – not just in clinical roles but in research and innovation. International students, who often pursue STEM and health-related fields at U.S. universities, are a key part of this pipeline. Yet recent surveys from the Council of Graduate Schools show a sharp decline in new international student enrollment for the 2025-26 academic year, driven partly by visa uncertainties and global talent competition.

If this trend holds, the smaller cohorts arriving today will mean fewer physicians, nurses, biostatisticians and medical researchers in the coming decade – precisely when demand peaks. Although no major research organization has yet modeled the full impact that stricter immigration policies could have on the health care workforce, experts warn that tighter visa rules, higher application fees and stepped-up enforcement are likely to intensify shortages, not ease them.

These policies make it harder to hire foreign-born workers and create uncertainty for those already here. In turn, that complicates efforts to staff hospitals, clinics and long-term care facilities at a moment when the system can least afford additional strain.

—————

The hidden toll: Delayed care, rising risks

Patients don’t feel staffing gaps as statistics – they feel them physically.

A specialist appointment delayed by months can mean worsening pain. Older adults without home care aides face higher risks of falls, malnutrition and medication errors. An understaffed nursing home turning away patients leaves families scrambling. 
These aren’t hypotheticals – they’re already happening in pockets of the country where shortages are acute.

The costs of restrictive immigration policies won’t appear in federal budgets but in human tolls: months spent with untreated depression, discomfort awaiting procedures, or preventable hospitalizations. Rural communities, often served by immigrant physicians, and urban nursing homes, reliant on immigrant aides, will feel this most acutely.

Most Americans won’t read a visa bulletin or a labor market forecast over holiday dinners. But they will notice when it becomes harder to get care for a child, a partner or an aging parent.

Aligning immigration policy with the realities of the health care system will not, by itself, fix every problem in U.S. health care. But tightening the rules in the face of rising demand and known shortages almost guarantees more disruption. If policymakers connect immigration policy to workforce realities, and adjust it accordingly, they can help ensure that when Americans reach out for care, someone is there to answer.

Efforts to end the war in Ukraine have grabbed global attention, fueled by debates over U.S. President Donald Trump’s 28-point plan – which many analysts see as favoring Russia – and European attempts to craft a counterproposal.

 Colgate University

(THE CONVERSATION) — Efforts to end the war in Ukraine have grabbed global attention, fueled by debates over U.S. President Donald Trump’s 28-point plan – which many analysts see as favoring Russia – and European attempts to craft a counterproposal.

We’ve been here before. Failed attempts to end the conflict date back to the beginning, soon after Russia’s 2014 occupation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas. After Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, peace discussions started up again within days, and they have continued in fits and starts since.

Prospects for a lasting peace remain dubious. One reason, I believe, is that the proposals pay little attention to the relationship between peace and justice – a flaw shared by previous plans.

Is peace worth having if it’s unjust? Is justice worth pursuing if it prolongs war? Those are questions as troubling as they are old. “Peace is the effect of justice,” as St. Thomas Aquinas argued in the 13th century. Ceasefires built on coercion or exhaustion inevitably fail because they do not resolve the conflict’s causes.

Aquinas is a major figure in the just war tradition, the focus of my research. This area of ethics helps weigh when war is justified – and also how it should end.

Today, the insight that peace and justice are inseparable grounds what international law terms “transitional justice.” By focusing on victims and assuring accountability for past wrongs, this approach seeks to disrupt recurring cycles of violence.

Past agreements and proposals aimed at ending the conflict in Ukraine failed because in the rush to stop the fighting, they ignored questions of justice. The literature on transitional justice, by contrast, encourages negotiators to attend to four interdependent principles: truth, justice, reparations and safeguards against future recurrence.

—————

1. Truth

Truth is essential for peace. As St. Augustine, one of the earliest Christian just-war thinkers, put it in the fourth century, “false justice” arises when the pursuit of truth is abandoned.

Durable peace agreements require all sides to cooperate with international efforts to document war crimes and human rights violations, such as the United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. This is no small task. So far, Ukraine has granted access to outside investigators, but Russia has refused, even when it has accused Ukraine of war crimes.

But reconciliation requires a complete accounting of the harms done. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission after the end of apartheid, explained that “forgiveness depends on repentance, which has to be based on an acknowledgment of what was done wrong, and therefore on disclosure of the truth.”

Truth-telling also prevents false narratives from creating “justifications” for renewed fighting. Thus, peace in Ukraine will require a global effort to combat disinformation legitimizing Russia’s aggression and obscuring its war crimes.

—————

2. Justice

Justice demands holding perpetrators to account. If, as Aquinas argued, a just war is “one that avenges wrongs” or seeks “to restore what [has been] seized unjustly,” ignoring these concerns when ending a war would itself be unjust.

Treating collaborators with fairness requires nuance. In some cases, pardoning individuals who acted under duress – and even willing but nonviolent collaborators who fully disclose their actions – can support postwar reconciliation. Especially in areas once occupied by enemy forces, frank confessions can help rebuild social trust.

However, amnesty for war crimes and crimes against humanity is impermissible because pardons deny victims justice and may embolden future perpetrators. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for six Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, the Council of Europe has established a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine, which would prosecute senior Russian officials who ordered the illegal invasion.

Realistically, neither forum can try those responsible without either Russia’s defeat or Putin’s removal from power. But in the interim, other countries can continue to support Ukrainian courts handling war crimes cases.

Justice also requires holding one’s own side accountable, even if the other side will not reciprocate. Allegations of war crimes by Ukrainian soldiers are far rarer, but Ukrainian courts must also prosecute these. Fair trials for all combatants are essential, lest, as Aquinas cautions, judgments seek “to sate … hatred under cover of correction.”

—————

3. Reparations

Reparations aim to make survivors whole again. This principle, too, has roots in classical just war thinking. The 16th-century theologian Francisco de Vitoria, for example, argued that reparations within the bounds of “equity and humanity” could help redress losses and restore justice.

The World Bank estimates that direct damage in Ukraine is over US$176 billion; in total, rebuilding will cost three times that. The Council of Europe has recommended using frozen Russian assets to fund reconstruction efforts, as have some American scholars. The illegality of Russia’s invasion means that such countermeasures are likely permissible under international law.

Apologies can also serve as reparations, but Russia is unlikely to proffer any – partly because domestic political pressures mean Putin cannot afford to look like he has lost.

Commemorative events and memorials also validate victims’ suffering. The international community can support Ukrainians in their efforts to meaningfully memorialize the war.

—————

4. Deterrence

Peace lasts when the parties trust that the violence won’t reoccur.

However, Russia has repeatedly broken its treaties with Ukraine. That includes the first agreements meant to bring the conflict to an end, back in 2014.

That summer, Russian-backed separatists downed a Malaysian Airways flight, spurring the international community to seek a quick resolution. The hastily drafted Minsk agreements, signed in 2014 and 2015, established a ceasefire monitoring mission and required the removal of foreign military units. They also demanded Ukrainian constitutional reforms – ostensibly to secure more autonomy for the country’s largely Russian-speaking east.

The Minsk agreements temporarily froze the conflict, but relative quiet didn’t mean peace. Ceasefire violations were perpetual. Russian-supported militias were not disbanded, and Russia continued to send mercenaries and military forces to the Donbas. Human rights violations proliferated in Russian-occupied areas. And in February 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion.

Given this history, a durable peace would require that Russia accept constraints on its power. The various peace proposals put forth since 2022, however, have demanded security concessions only from Kyiv, requiring Ukraine to abandon hopes for NATO membership and restricting the size of its military.

Russia is unlikely to agree to caps on its military. Deterrence, then, could take the form of credible commitments from other countries to enforce whatever peace agreement emerges.

Ukraine’s vulnerability to future Russian aggression means it will need binding promises from its partners. Russia will not sign a treaty that permits Ukraine to join NATO, which Moscow claims would be a threat. Other possible safeguards for Ukrainian sovereignty include a proposed international peacekeeping force or an alternative set of security alliances.

—————

Lasting peace

Ultimately, a durable peace requires considering both sides’ legitimate security and justice claims if, as Vitoria wrote in 1539, “they are prepared to negotiate genuinely and fairly.”

Therein lies the catch. Transnational justice can be hijacked, with aggressors trying to portray themselves as victims. Separating fact from fiction, and genuine concerns from manufactured pretext, is essential at the negotiating table.

A quick end to the war is tempting, but a hasty peace is a fragile one. A durable peace, rather than yet another ceasefire, requires attention to justice – even if that takes more time to achieve.

The Department of Defense in late November 2025 announced that it would investigate U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and NASA astronaut, for what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has called seditious behavior.

By Joshua Kastenberg
University of New Mexico

(THE CONVERSATION) — The Department of Defense in late November 2025 announced that it would investigate U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and NASA astronaut, for what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has called seditious behavior. 

The threat of investigation came after Kelly and five other Democrats, all with military backgrounds, released a video reminding U.S. service members they can disobey illegal orders issued by the Trump administration.

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law, or our Constitution,” the lawmakers said, without specifying the orders the U.S. service members may have received. “Know that we have your back … don’t give up the ship.”

In response to the video, President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of “seditious behavior” that could be “punishable by death.”

Sedition is a federal crime, but as a military law scholar who served as a judge in the U.S. Air Force, I believe the Democratic lawmakers articulated a correct view of military law. That is, service members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
have a duty to not obey unlawful orders.

There are several unique features to military law that have no analog to civilian criminal law, and if Kelly were court-martialed he would be deprived of several fundamental constitutional rights.

—————

Military justice

In a civilian criminal trial the government normally has the burden of proof on all matters. But in a court-martial, a service member who argues that an order is unlawful has the burden of proving its unlawfulness. And the Supreme Court, in its 1827 opinion in Martin v. Mott, gave this view some credence, arguing that the president, as commander in chief, should not be questioned during a national emergency.

Second, ordinary citizens are protected by a constitutional requirement that the prosecution must convince all jurors of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A court-martial has only a two-thirds threshold to establish guilt. And the jurors – called members – are not the accused service member’s peers.

Indeed, the court-martial members are military personnel who outrank the accused service member and are picked to serve by senior commanding officers. Military judges are also uniformed officers and, like the rest of the military, are subject to the chain of command.

At times, senior officers have inserted themselves into the military justice system and tried to direct a court-martial to convict an accused service member. This has created the problem of unlawful command influence, the improper use of superior authority to interfere with the court-martial process.

Kelly is still theoretically subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could be court-martialed because he is a military retiree. This concept of a lifetime military jurisdiction did not exist when the Constitution was instituted in 1789. It came into 
existence during an emergency session of Congress in 1861.

The Supreme Court has never held that lifetime jurisdiction is constitutional. But in 2022 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did, in a 2-1 decision.

It reasoned that if the Constitution’s creators had thought such a jurisdiction were a threat to the republic, they would have prohibited it. The dissenting judge in that case pointed out the frightening possibility of a president using the Uniform Code of Military Justice to curb free speech.

—————

Lines of defense

Kelly is different than an ordinary retiree, and this case is bigger than a single senator. That’s because it goes to the heart of what the Constitution’s framers intended by preserving liberty through a republican form of government.

In 1648, Oliver Cromwell, who had become a military dictator over England, used the army to curb the Magna Carta – a revolutionary basic rights document dating to 1215 – and the ability of Parliament to debate matters and pass laws. The Constitution is designed to prevent anything coming close to such an occurrence.

So, what would Kelly’s defense likely be, other than that he exercised free speech and gave a correct recitation of the law?

Kelly’s first defense might be that under the Constitution, the president, as commander in chief, has no power to court-martial or otherwise administratively penalize him. Doing so would diminish Congress’ authority.

In 1974, the Supreme Court determined in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee that although the Constitution prohibits a member of Congress from holding a position in the executive branch, citizens had no standing to sue in the federal courts to prevent this from occurring. Taken literally, the clause means that no member of Congress could hold a military commission and be beholden to the commander in chief, since this would erode Congress’ independence and authority.

Kelly’s second defense could be that after the Constitution and statutory law, the military law is governed by tradition, or the military’s own past practices, which used to be referred to as “lex non scripta.”

American history is replete with retired officers criticizing presidents or even joining in hate groups that accused a president of being beholden to subversive interests. Past presidents have ignored these men.

They include George Van Horn Moseley, who sided with pro-Nazi groups and accused President Franklin Roosevelt of being a communist. Retired generals Albert Coady Wedemeyer and Bonner Fellers formed organizations that undermined Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

None of these men were court-martialed or administratively penalized.

Finally, Kelly could argue in federal court that the military has no jurisdiction over him because of the issue of unlawful command influence. One only needs to look at Hegseth’s statements in the case to see the specter of this problem in regard to Kelly.
When Congress formulated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it criminalized unlawful command influence. But as military law scholar Rachel VanLandingham has pointed out, no person has ever been prosecuted for violating the prohibition.

Kelly could argue that there are no safeguards in his case to ensure a fair hearing and that the case should move from military courts to federal courts. The federal judge assigned the case can then ponder whether siding with the administration’s claims is a step toward establishing a Cromwellian future and away from the Constitution’s protection of a republican form of government.

Of course, Congress could put a stop to any persecution of Kelly by informing the president that he is acting contrary to the Constitution and explaining to do so is a high crime or misdemeanor.

During the Vietnam War, scholar Robert Sherrill said that “military justice is to justice what military music is to music.” In the past, military justice has been able to accomplish fair trials of military members, but it is dangerously open to influence by military leaders, all the way up to the commander in chief.

If there is to be an exercise in accountability for Kelly, it could more fairly be administered through a real constitutional analysis conducted by the independent federal judicial branch – or through a congressional intervention. Without either occurring, we may as a nation find ourselves a closer step toward a Cromwellian future.

The public has been hearing from a lot of federal judges over the past year, much more than normal. That’s because many of them are concerned about the Trump administration’s commitment to the rule of law.

(THE CONVERSATION) — The public has been hearing from a lot of federal judges over the past year, much more than normal. That’s because many of them are concerned about the Trump administration’s commitment to the rule of law.

Dickinson College President John E. Jones III was appointed as a federal judge by President George W. Bush and spent 20 years on the bench after being confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002. Jones spoke with The Conversation U.S. senior politics editor, Naomi Schalit, about America’s legal landscape after almost a year of Donald Trump’s presidency.

—————

What does the case just argued at the Supreme Court about the president’s ability to fire leaders at independent agencies tell you about Donald Trump’s presidency?

We’ve seen a progression over time, with both Republican and Democratic presidents, where there’s been a stronger and stronger chief executive. But there’s been nothing like this administration, where the president has fired members of heretofore independent agencies. Having listened to oral arguments, which at times can be misleading, there’s very little question that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the “Humphreys Executor” precedent.

What it means is that this president will have the opportunity to utterly remake all of these independent agencies now. He’s going to take people out, root and branch, and put folks in who are either with the program or they’re not going to get appointed.

—————

So this case is emblematic of Trump’s approach to presidential power?

He does not recognize and does not want among his appointees – certainly we see this in the Cabinet – any modicum of independence. You’re either with him 100% or you’re against him. Now that will extend to these independent agencies, and that means that the measured sort of regulations that have existed for a long time are going to be disrupted and maybe even eliminated.

—————

This year has seen unusual amounts of activity in the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. What is the significance of that?

This is the court’s emergency docket. If the court takes these cases, they order a very abbreviated briefing and they decide the matter very quickly. Typically, this is a problem for lower court judges, as the cases are decided with very little explanation.

Sometimes months and months intervene before the court gets back to that case and renders a full and complete determination. One example would be the birthright citizenship case that came up to the court on the shadow docket. The court rendered an interim decision about whether U.S. District Court judges could issue orders stopping nationwide enforcement of Trump policies. They didn’t rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship case.

Since then, there have been conflicting decisions across the country. You have circuits that have ruled on the question and other circuits that haven’t ruled on it at all. So depending on where you live in the United States, you may or may not be subject to what heretofore has been the accepted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

This administration’s clear strategy – to flood the zone by simply challenging every adverse decision against it in the lower courts – means there are an unprecedented number of cases coming up to the Supreme Court. It just means that there’s utter confusion in the lower courts, and it’s been the subject of a lot of dissatisfaction among lower court judges. It really puts the federal court system into a state of uncertainty and chaos, and obviously it’s not good for the public.

—————

U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Congress limits how long interim U.S. attorneys can serve in these positions. But the Trump administration has circumvented those limits, keeping a number of interim U.S. attorneys on the job past the 120-day limit. These cases have been challenged in court. Why is this conflict notable?

What the president has attempted to do flies in the face of legislation that says that these interim appointments are limited to 120 days. Every court has found that the president’s appointment or attempted appointment beyond the first 120 days is unlawful and unconstitutional. It is a limitation on the president’s power.

If the president’s version were correct, you could just have endless interim appointments without any involvement by the Senate. This is a place where the courts have, in effect, upheld the integrity of the advice-and-consent system and the constitutional role of the Senate.

—————

Trump ordered the Department of Justice to prosecute James Comey and Letitia James, among others. He has also granted massive numbers of pardons and commutations. What are your thoughts on these?

My takeaway as an American citizen and as a former judge is that at bottom, President Trump simply lacks respect for our system of justice.

I don’t think you can find otherwise when on your first day in office you issue over 1,000 pardons for people who were justifiably convicted or pled guilty to what was, by any account, an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. He has pardoned countless people since then, including a former president of Honduras who his own administration prosecuted and for which there was abundant evidence that he was a drug trafficker. He’s blowing up boats in the Caribbean without, in my view, any rationale that’s grounded in law. The president believes the law is whatever he says it is at any given moment.

As to the Department of Justice, I think that’s one of the most worrisome things about this administration. There is a seamless interface between the White House and the Department of Justice that is problematic, and it is quite clear that the Department of Justice will do anything that the president wants.

I think we’re in a very, very difficult and dark place when the president by fiat can simply order his attorney general to prosecute a person. And I think every American should worry about a world where that takes place without any buffer.

—————

The administration has a documented pattern of disobeying or sidestepping court orders. Your thoughts?

The way our system is supposed to work is that people can disagree with lower court decisions, but they have to obey them, unless they’re stayed by application to a higher court. The administration seems to have decided that they’re going to write U.S. district judges out of the picture and simply disregard their orders.

When I served as a U.S. District Court judge, I always understood that I had pretty awesome power to do things. That power was to be used sparingly and carefully, but when I ordered something, I expected that that order would be followed.

That is the nature of the rule of law and our system of justice that now has been turned on its head by this administration.

The second point is that I would wish that our Supreme Court would take a stronger stand against this kind of gamesmanship in the lower courts. Those who serve in the third branch – the nation’s courts – are all in this together. There has to be more attention given to an administration that has really gone rogue in terms of how they treat the orders of U.S. District Court judges.

—————

I don’t think the public has ever heard more from judges or former judges or retired judges than they are hearing right now. That includes you, president of a university, former federal judge, saying things that I think the public isn’t accustomed to hearing from either current or former judges. What’s going on?

What’s happening is that judges who come from all stripes, philosophically and party affiliations, are deeply concerned and offended about the tenor of the times, and they feel the need, as I do, to become active and to rally to the support of our system of justice. Imperfect though it may be, I’ve always regarded it as the fairest and best system in the world.

President Donald Trump is making full use of his pardon power. This year, Trump has issued roughly 1,800 pardons, or nearly six times the number he issued during the four years of his first term. Granted, about 1,500 of them involved individuals charged for their role in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on Congress. Still, the pace of Trump’s pardons this year have been nearly unprecedented.

Stewart Ulrich, 
Sam Houston State University

(THE CONVERSATION) — President Donald Trump is making full use of his pardon power. This year, Trump has issued roughly 1,800 pardons, or nearly six times the number he issued during the four years of his first term. Granted, about 1,500 of them involved individuals charged for their role in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on Congress. Still, the pace of Trump’s pardons this year have been nearly unprecedented.

That is, until you remember his predecessor. Joe Biden, at the end of his term, issued a full and sweeping pardon to his son Hunter for gun and drug charges. This was an unprecedented action by a president to pardon his own child, which had never been done before. Biden also granted pardons to several other family members on his final day in office.

Despite serving a single term, Biden holds the record for the most acts of clemency, or pardons combined with commuted sentences, of any president. It’s a record that’s not hard to imagine Trump could break.

As a political scientist who has studied pardons and other aspects of presidential power, I believe that the founders of our nation would be horrified by the contemporary use of the pardon power, which represents a far cry from the unifying act of mercy it was intended to be. While Biden issued pardons to family members, Trump has handed them out to political allies.

It remains to be seen whether this is a slight deviation from course or becomes a permanent pattern for all presidents in the future.

—————

A clear break

There’s no question that Trump and Biden have acted within their authority in issuing pardons for federal offenses. Presidents can extend a pardon, or complete legal forgiveness of a crime, or a commutation, which is the reduction of a sentence. However, individuals pardoned for federal crimes may still face peril in state courts.

This extraordinary power may seem kinglike at first glance, but it was given to the president with a different vision in mind. The founders of the country viewed the pardon power not as a personal token for the president to hand out but as an act of mercy meant to check the other two branches.

If Congress passed a law that the president believed was poorly written, or if the courts unfairly punished someone for breaking it, the president could step in and right the wrong. This was seen by the founders as a merciful act, stemming from the tradition of old English law.

Throughout American history, we have seen presidents mostly adhere to this pattern. Both Abraham Lincoln and his successor Andrew Johnson issued pardons and amnesty to former Confederate citizens, with the aim of helping the nation come back together after secession and the Civil War. Harry Truman granted amnesty to certain World War II deserters, while Jimmy Carter granted pardons to hundreds of thousands of individuals who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War.

But toward the end of the 20th century and into the 21st, presidents have used the pardon pen increasingly for personal and political reasons. The inflection point is undoubtedly the pardon of former President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 by his former vice president and successor, Gerald Ford. This was issued a month after Nixon’s resignation in the wake of the Watergate scandal, which involved Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign spying on his political enemies.

Ford justified his action by citing the need for national unity, saying the pardon would spare the country from a messy and dramatic public trial of a former president. Never before had a high-profile public politician received such a presidential grant, which caused Ford’s public standing to take a hit. Scholars and historians believe the act contributed to his reelection loss in 1976.

We have since seen Ford’s decision open the door to more pardons of political allies or personal friends. In 1992, George H.W. Bush pardoned officials he had served with in the Reagan administration who were tangled up in the arms-for-hostages, Iran-Contra scandal; Bill Clinton pardoned Democratic donor Marc Rich in 2001; and George W. Bush commuted the sentence of vice presidential aide Scooter Libby in 2007.

—————

Trump’s expanded use

As it happens, Trump issued a full pardon to Libby in 2018. During his first term, Trump also pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

At the end of his first term, Trump pardoned his former campaign manager Paul Manafort and his friend Roger Stone among other political allies.

Trump’s second term has seen clemency for his former lawyer and friend Rudy Giuliani, as well as crypto executive Changpeng Zhao, whose ties to Trump family businesses have raised questions about the pardon.

Trump’s use of the pardon power does not seem to follow a consistent doctrine or philosophy. Some of his clemency actions seem to contradict his administration’s policy, such as dozens of pardons of drug traffickers, despite the effort to stop drug trafficking in the Caribbean.

The pace of Trump’s pardons and commutations, however, suggests little hesitation. The question looking forward, beyond his presidency, is how much of a precedent his actions, along with Biden’s, may set for their successors.

We know this from earlier expansions of the pardon’s reach, as well as other areas of presidential authority: Few presidents willingly relinquish powers accrued by their predecessors. Once chief executives have exercised a certain type of authority, their predecessors seldom give it back, ultimately increasing the power of the presidency.