‘Ours Is Not an Autocracy’: An Evolving Collection of Quotes from US Judges Fighting to Preserve the Rule of Law Features
sergeitokmakov / Pixabay
‘Ours Is Not an Autocracy’: An Evolving Collection of Quotes from US Judges Fighting to Preserve the Rule of Law

As the executive branch continues to test the boundaries of its authority with increasing brazenness, a growing number of federal judges have responded with remarkable clarity and courage. Their opinions reflect not only legal reasoning, but deep conviction in the constitutional principles they are sworn to uphold. This evolving collection of judicial statements documents how members of the bench are using their voices to resist the erosion of the rule of law and to defend the structural safeguards of American democracy.

The quotes below are drawn primarily from court opinions and filings. In rare cases where statements were made in hearings or reported in reliable news sources, citations are provided accordingly. Italicized passages represent direct quotations, and selections are organized into core elements of the rule of law. Within these subject areas, they are ordered from highest to lowest court, and within those sub-categories, alphabetically by the judge’s last name.

At a time when executive power is being wielded in ways that test the limits of legality and accountability, these judges remind us that defending democracy requires vigilance—and sometimes, the courage to dissent.

Due Process and Procedural Fairness

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In practice, this requires the government to follow fair procedures and provide adequate notice before taking actions that affect individual rights. Courts have long held that arbitrary government action violates this fundamental constitutional protection.

Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting in Trump v. Boyle, July 23, 2025. This case concerns presidential removal powers over independent agency commissioners.

  • By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.
  • The result—an increase of executive power at the expense of legislative authority—does not stand alone.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., July 3, 2025. This case focuses on due process rights as they pertain to the Trump Administration’s efforts to deport noncitizens to third countries.

  • The United States may not deport noncitizens to a country where they are likely to be tortured or killed. International and domestic law guarantee that basic human right. In this case, the Government seeks to nullify it by deporting noncitizens to potentially dangerous countries without notice or the opportunity to assert a fear of torture.
  • Because “the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings… the Government’s no-notice removals are undoubtedly illegal.

Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

The Constitution divides government power among three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—with each serving as a check on the others. This system, rooted in Articles I, II, and III, prevents any single branch from accumulating too much power. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that this separation is essential to protecting individual liberty and democratic governance.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, July 8, 2025. This case addresses executive power to reorganize federal agencies without congressional approval.

  • If a President runs roughshod over the carefully crafted statutes that authorize and animate the Federal Government… he discards and disables the democratic system that created those laws.

Judge Ronald M. Gould, writing for the majority in State of Washington v. Trump, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, July 23, 2025. This case concerns the constitutionality of the Trump Administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order.

  • One power that the President was not granted, by Article II or by any other source, is the power to modify or change any clause of the United States Constitution.

Judge Myong Joun, New York v McMahon, District Court for the District of Massachusetts, May 22, 2025. This case concerns the Trump Administration’s efforts to shutter the Department of Education.

  • While it may be true that the President has the power to remove executive officers … [the Trump Administration cites no case law affirming] that this power includes the power to dismantle Congressionally created departments and programs through mass terminations. These actions violate the separation of powers by violating the executive’s duties to take care to faithfully execute laws enacted by Congress, as well as its duties to expend funds that Congress has authorized it to appropriate.

Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, District Court for the District of Columbia, Grundmann v. Trump, March 12, 2025. This case concerns presidential removal powers over federal labor relations officials.

  • Ours is not an autocracy; it is a system of checks and balances.
  • Our Founders recognized that the concentration of power in one branch of government would spell disaster.
  • [As stated by Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1926 case Myers v. US:] ‘The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction 2 incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.’

Transparency, Accountability, and Good Governance

Principles of governmental transparency and accountability flow from democratic theory and specific laws like the Freedom of Information Act. Courts expect government agencies to provide reasoned explanations for their actions and to follow established procedures. The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making, not arbitrary rule.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., July 3, 2025. This case focuses on due process rights as they pertain to the Trump Administration’s efforts to deport noncitizens to third countries.

  • The Court’s continued refusal to justify its extraordinary decisions in this case, even as it faults lower courts for failing properly to divine their import, is indefensible.
  • But if this Court wishes to permit the Government to flout the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, it cannot avoid accountability for that lawlessness by tasking the lower courts with inventing a rationale.

Judge Ronald M. Gould, writing for the majority in State of Washington v. Trump, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, July 23, 2025. This case concerns the constitutionality of the Trump Administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order.

  • The rule of law is secured by a strong public interest that the laws ‘enacted by their representatives are not imperiled by executive fiat.’

Judge Christopher R. Cooper, District Court for the District of Columbia, American Bar Association v. US Department of Justice, May 14, 2025. This case concerns the DOJ’s cancellation of ABA grants meant to help survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

  • Government actions in contravention of the Constitution are ‘always contrary to the public interest.’

Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law

Article III guarantees federal judges life tenure and salary protection to ensure judicial independence from political pressure. The rule of law means that no person is above the law, and that legal decisions must be based on established legal principles rather than political considerations. This independence allows courts to check executive and legislative overreach.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, July 8, 2025. This case addresses executive power to reorganize federal agencies without congressional approval.

  • With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting in Trump v. CASA, Inc., June 27, 2025. This opinion focuses on the authority of federal courts to issue universal injunctions against government policies.

  • What it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.
  • The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.
  • Federal judges pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic… They do not agree to permit unconstitutional behavior by the Executive (or anyone else).
  • I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the Executive to act unlawfully in some circum- stances … executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.

Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting in Trump v. Boyle, July 23, 2025. This case concerns presidential removal powers over independent agency commissioners.

  • The majority has acted on the emergency docket—with ‘little time, scant briefing, and no argument’—to override Congress’s decisions about how to structure administrative agencies so that they can perform their prescribed duties. By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., July 3, 2025. This case focuses on due process rights as they pertain to the Trump Administration’s efforts to deport noncitizens to third countries.

  • [Justice Felix Frankfurter once wrote:] ‘In a democracy, power implies responsibility. The greater the power that defies law the less tolerant can this Court be of defiance. As the Nation’s ultimate judicial tribunal, this Court, beyond any other organ of society, is the trustee of law and charged with the duty of securing obedience to it.’ This Court continues to invert those principles.
  • Today’s order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting in Trump v. CASA, Inc., June 27, 2025. This opinion focuses on the authority of federal courts to issue universal injunctions against government policies.

  • The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort.
  • No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.

Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, District Court for the District of Columbia, Grundmann v. Trump, March 12, 2025. This case concerns presidential removal powers over federal labor relations officials.

  • Issuing no relief at all would undermine ‘the bedrock principle that our system of government is founded on the rule of law.’
THIS DAY @ LAW

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his Letter from Birmingham Jail

On April 16, 1963, an incarcerated Martin Luther King, Jr. (arrested for demonstrating in defiance of a court order) wrote his Letter from Birmingham Jail in response to a published statement by eight fellow clergymen from Alabama. Part of the letter read: We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. Read the full text of the letter.

Former communist countries admitted for EU accession

On April 16, 2003, the 2003 Treaty of Accession was signed by 10 countries, admitting them to the European Union (EU). After Malta and Cyprus, eight of the ten new EU nations (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) were former communist countries. The signing of the treaty in Athens marked the first time that former members of the Soviet Bloc joined the EU. Learn more about EU expansion from the organization's website.