Michael Waldman
Brennan Center for Justice, president
Brennan Center for Justice, president
As the summer ends, I want to share three updates. Each in their way gives hope that the rule of law still has great strength in resisting abuse.
Let’s start with breaking news: On Tuesday, in response to a request from Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine wrote that “the Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections.” There are “no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material.” He noted, “Election administration and security remain the fundamental responsibility of state and local officials.”
That’s encouraging, though it’s infuriating that it should be necessary to solicit, let alone cheer, such a letter. Trump has mused about sending in troops and has refused to rule out a putsch. Use of troops would be illegal, as we’ve explained before. Caine’s pledge, if it holds, is one more example of key officials standing up for the rule of law.
And what’s the latest on Trump’s executive order that tries to curb mail voting?
It’s still illegal. It’s still unconstitutional. And it’s still on hold, per the ruling of a federal judge last week. As she wrote, the Postal Service’s “interest in correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote.”
Expect lots of legal brawling, but our advice remains: Voters should make a plan to vote. If you vote by mail — as one in three Americans do — there’s every reason to expect you can still do so. Vote early if you can.
One more thing to note: There’s evidence that many leaders from the president’s own party seem increasingly pained by all this. Most Republican states did not sign briefs supporting Trump’s latest legal filing on mail voting. After all, dissuading their own supporters from casting ballots is a perverse get-out-the-vote strategy.
Meanwhile, the governor of deep-red Wyoming blew the whistle on bad behavior by some Justice Department election observers sent into his state. “I feel very strongly about the federal government coming in and taking our guns — I don’t like that,” Gov. Mark Gordon said. “And I don’t like the federal government coming in and taking our votes, either.”
And finally, I’m proud to share a new Brennan Center report that documents the intense pressure on those who would do their jobs to uphold the Constitution.
Since last year, in dozens of cases, federal trial judges have ruled against abuses of executive power. We want judges to rule based on the facts and the law. Our justice system depends on it. In this fraught political moment, that’s saying something. And it often requires courage.
Our new report maps the dangers facing federal judges these days. We spoke to 35 current and former jurists, appointed by every president since Jimmy Carter. They work, we report, in an “increasingly hostile landscape of threats, harassment, and intimidation,” and our conversations surfaced some alarming examples:
A federal district judge described receiving more than 700 threatening phone calls to their chambers after hearing a case related to immigration enforcement by the second Trump administration. The judge, who asked to remain anonymous, also recounted intense online harassment — including having their home’s floor plan posted on the internet. Fearing for their and their family’s safety, the judge said that they ultimately spent a substantial amount of their own money to build a safe room and take other steps to fortify their home.
The judge described how the experience left the whole family in a state of constant vigilance. They had “to drill what we’re going to do if someone enters the house.” The judge added, “I can’t leave my house at the same time or take the same routes. . . . When someone gets behind me, I just pull over and let them pass. It’s not the car you see — it’s the car you don’t see. . . . My [child’s] school has been made aware, as well as the local police.” As a result of the threats, the judge said, “the school had to increase [active] shooter trainings.”
I consider it rather remarkable that so many federal judges are willing to speak out in this way.
Judges need more security. We need to consider how to better protect them. One possibility is to give the judicial branch greater control over its own security, rather than leaving it to the executive branch (which largely runs the U.S. Marshals Service).
These past two years have shown us who crumbles in the face of abusive power. So many federal judges have stood strong. Part of the reckoning with this moment will include protecting those who protect the Constitution.
Let’s start with breaking news: On Tuesday, in response to a request from Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine wrote that “the Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections.” There are “no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material.” He noted, “Election administration and security remain the fundamental responsibility of state and local officials.”
That’s encouraging, though it’s infuriating that it should be necessary to solicit, let alone cheer, such a letter. Trump has mused about sending in troops and has refused to rule out a putsch. Use of troops would be illegal, as we’ve explained before. Caine’s pledge, if it holds, is one more example of key officials standing up for the rule of law.
And what’s the latest on Trump’s executive order that tries to curb mail voting?
It’s still illegal. It’s still unconstitutional. And it’s still on hold, per the ruling of a federal judge last week. As she wrote, the Postal Service’s “interest in correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote.”
Expect lots of legal brawling, but our advice remains: Voters should make a plan to vote. If you vote by mail — as one in three Americans do — there’s every reason to expect you can still do so. Vote early if you can.
One more thing to note: There’s evidence that many leaders from the president’s own party seem increasingly pained by all this. Most Republican states did not sign briefs supporting Trump’s latest legal filing on mail voting. After all, dissuading their own supporters from casting ballots is a perverse get-out-the-vote strategy.
Meanwhile, the governor of deep-red Wyoming blew the whistle on bad behavior by some Justice Department election observers sent into his state. “I feel very strongly about the federal government coming in and taking our guns — I don’t like that,” Gov. Mark Gordon said. “And I don’t like the federal government coming in and taking our votes, either.”
And finally, I’m proud to share a new Brennan Center report that documents the intense pressure on those who would do their jobs to uphold the Constitution.
Since last year, in dozens of cases, federal trial judges have ruled against abuses of executive power. We want judges to rule based on the facts and the law. Our justice system depends on it. In this fraught political moment, that’s saying something. And it often requires courage.
Our new report maps the dangers facing federal judges these days. We spoke to 35 current and former jurists, appointed by every president since Jimmy Carter. They work, we report, in an “increasingly hostile landscape of threats, harassment, and intimidation,” and our conversations surfaced some alarming examples:
A federal district judge described receiving more than 700 threatening phone calls to their chambers after hearing a case related to immigration enforcement by the second Trump administration. The judge, who asked to remain anonymous, also recounted intense online harassment — including having their home’s floor plan posted on the internet. Fearing for their and their family’s safety, the judge said that they ultimately spent a substantial amount of their own money to build a safe room and take other steps to fortify their home.
The judge described how the experience left the whole family in a state of constant vigilance. They had “to drill what we’re going to do if someone enters the house.” The judge added, “I can’t leave my house at the same time or take the same routes. . . . When someone gets behind me, I just pull over and let them pass. It’s not the car you see — it’s the car you don’t see. . . . My [child’s] school has been made aware, as well as the local police.” As a result of the threats, the judge said, “the school had to increase [active] shooter trainings.”
I consider it rather remarkable that so many federal judges are willing to speak out in this way.
Judges need more security. We need to consider how to better protect them. One possibility is to give the judicial branch greater control over its own security, rather than leaving it to the executive branch (which largely runs the U.S. Marshals Service).
These past two years have shown us who crumbles in the face of abusive power. So many federal judges have stood strong. Part of the reckoning with this moment will include protecting those who protect the Constitution.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
