When Rules are Optional
Courts, Congress, and the Presidency
An Address for Community Conversations | Leaders One Voice
Approximate length: 1,200 words | About 9 minutes, spoken
Preface: Rules work best when applied regularly, evenly and consistently. The same is true of sharing ideas. The more people hear a well-sourced account — and the more trusted voices they hear it from — the more seriously they tend to take it. And the more likely they are to vote for candidates who will take congressional oversight seriously.. Repetition isn't a problem. It's how ideas take hold. We are ensuring communities have what they need to decide for themselves — and that they hear it from someone they know and respect. That is what you provide. It matters more than you may think.
Speaker's Note:
Are you affiliated with a non-profit? Deliver this personally, not as an official function — if you lead a 501(c) (3) (clergy, board chair, director), share it in conversation or a community forum, •not from the pulpit. That keeps it separate from your organization's tax status.Preface: Rules work best when applied regularly, evenly and consistently. The same is true of sharing ideas. The more people hear a well-sourced account — and the more trusted voices they hear it from — the more seriously they tend to take it. And the more likely they are to vote for candidates who will take congressional oversight seriously.. Repetition isn't a problem. It's how ideas take hold. We are ensuring communities have what they need to decide for themselves — and that they hear it from someone they know and respect. That is what you provide. It matters more than you may think.
Preface:
Rules work best when applied regularly, evenly and consistently. The same is true of sharing ideas. The more people hear a well-sourced account — and the more trusted voices they hear it from — •the more seriously they tend to take it. And the more likely they are to vote for candidates who will take congressional oversight seriously.. Repetition isn't a problem. It's how ideas take hold.
We are ensuring communities have what they need to decide for themselves — and that they hear it from someone they know and respect. That is what you provide. It matters more than you may think.
I. What the Rule of Law Actually Means
What it actually means is simple: the same rules apply to everyone. A contract you sign is enforceable. A court order must be followed. The law doesn't bend depending on who you are — including the most powerful person in the room.
Today I want to look carefully at whether that principle is holding up. I'll raise some questions. You'll draw your own conclusions.
II. The Money Congress Approved — and the Programs That Went Dark
The Constitution is plain: Congress decides what gets funded by passing laws. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the president to notify Congress before changing any appropriated funds.
In early 2025, the Trump administration froze or canceled billions of dollars Congress had already approved — without following that process. The National Institutes of Health canceled 1,800 research grants. Head Start programs in more than 40 states missed funding; 65,000 children were put at risk. Medicaid portals went offline in all 50 states. FEMA shelter grants were withheld. Nearly $2 billion in foreign aid that Congress approved for USAID was suspended.
Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ruled the administration's freeze "likely unconstitutional." By September 2025, the Government Accountability Office had issued six formal rulings finding that President Trump unlawfully blocked funds, with 39 investigations still open. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, stated: "Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law."
When a federal judge, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog, and the president's own party's senior senator reach the same conclusion — what should we think?
Sources: U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §9. Impoundment Control Act of 1974. GAO: 39 investigations, 6 rulings (May-September 2025); Comptroller General Dodaro testimony, April 2025. Judge McConnell, No. 1:25-cv-39 (D.R.I.), March 6, 2025. Sen. Collins, Government Executive, August 29, 2025. NIH: GAO ruling, August 2025. Head Start: PBS NewsHour, February 2025; FFYF tracker, March 2026. USAID: U.S. District Court, March 2025.
III. When Courts Say Stop
A Washington Post analysis reviewed 165 federal lawsuits in which courts ruled against the administration. In one third of those cases (57) Trump officials defied, delayed, or manipulated the courts' rulings.
Kilmar Abrego García is a sheet metal worker and father of three, a Maryland resident of more than a decade. A U.S. immigration judge ruled in 2019 he could not be deported to El Salvador because his life would be in danger there. In March 2025 he was deported to a harsh prison there anyway. His wife and three children, all U.S. citizens, did not know where he was. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in April 2025 that the government must facilitate his return. The administration stalled for months — what judges called "willful disregard" for court authority. Was Mr. Garcia's case an aberration?
On March 15, 2025, Chief Judge James Boasberg issued an oral order stopping deportation flights of Venezuelan men to the same prison. The two planes were on their way and did not turn around. Boasberg found probable cause for criminal contempt, writing: "The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders."
Minnesota's chief federal judge, Patrick Schiltz, found ICE ignoring more than 90 court orders across 70 cases in his district alone: "ICE is not a law unto itself."
If government officials feel free to ignore court orders, how can we trust that the rule of law will be upheld?
Sources: Washington Post analysis, July 21, 2025. Abrego Garcia v. Noem, Supreme Court, unanimous, April 10, 2025. Boasberg contempt finding, NPR/NBC News, April 16-17, 2025. ABC News flight record review, April 3, 2025. Judge Schiltz: PBS NewsHour, January 29, 2026.
IV. Inside the Justice Department
The courts have determined that the IRS broke the law when it shared roughly 47,000 names, and last known addresses, with ICE on August 7, 2025. Nina Olson, Executive Director, Center for Taxpayer Rights says that "trust in the tax system depends on protection of taxpayer information,” and "the IRS violated that trust.” This has be described as unprecedented, outrageous and alarming.
Erez Reuveni was a senior DOJ attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint in 2025 alleging that Emil Bove, a senior DOJ official, directed staff to ignore court rulings. When Reuveni raised objections, he was threatened, fired, and publicly disparaged. Bove was subsequently nominated by the president to serve as a federal judge.
In a separate case, after a court blocked a federal grant freeze, the Office of Management and Budget publicly rescinded its policy memo — but kept the freeze in place. The White House press secretary confirmed the memo was retracted to "end any confusion," that is, to appear to comply with the court's order, while actually keeping the freeze in place. Judge Loren AliKhan wrote: "The court can think of few things more disingenuous."
In a separate set of events, What does it mean when the officials sworn to enforce court orders direct staff to ignore them — and a lawyer who objects is fired?
Sources: Reuveni whistleblower complaint (Washington Post; NationofChange, July 23, 2025). Bove nomination: multiple outlets, 2025. Judge AliKhan opinion: NationofChange, July 23, 2025. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt statement, January 2025.
V. Due Process — and What the Law Requires
The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Not "no citizen" — it is "no person." Every human being within U.S. jurisdiction.
And here we're not talking only about the law. We're talking about the Constitution of the United States.
But where would this be important?
When a government agent takes a life, federal law requires an independent investigation, findings, and accountability that it needs to determine if that use of force was justified.
Since September 2025, federal agents shot and killed four people during enforcement operations: Renée Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens in Minneapolis; Silverio Villegas González, a long-term resident in a Chicago suburb; and Isaias Sanchez Barboza, a Mexican national at the Texas border.
In the Minneapolis cases, the FBI refused to share evidence with state investigators, and an FBI supervisor resigned after being pressured to abandon a civil rights inquiry. The Deputy Attorney General publicly closed the federal investigation before it was complete. In Chicago, the Illinois Accountability Commission issued a 204-page report finding federal agents had engaged in patterns of illegal and violent conduct;. In Texas, the agent who fired the shots has never been publicly identified.
Four people dead. No completed independent investigation in any of the four cases.
If the required process is blocked, delayed, or controlled by the same agency that employed the agent — is that due process? Or is it the opposite?
Sources: Renée Good: NYT (FBI supervisor Mergen resignation, January 23, 2026); Blanche DOJ statement, 2026. Alex Pretti: BCA statement (FBI withholding evidence, February 16, 2026); Hennepin County M.E. (homicide, February 2, 2026). Silverio Villegas González: Illinois Accountability Commission 204-page report; ISP investigation opened May 6, 2026. Isaias Sanchez Barboza: CBP incident summary, December 17, 2025; PBS NewsHour (agent never identified). Full case details in companion speech.
VI. Official Acts - Anything Goes?
On July 1, 2024, in President Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts — and broad presumptive immunity for a wide range of actions in office. Three dissenters took issue. Justice Sotomayor wrote: "Under the majority's rule, a President's use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution." And: "Never in the history of our Republic has a President [thought] that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used . . . his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity."
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell stated he did not believe presidents should be immune from prosecution for actions in office.
This ruling does not apply only to this president. It applies to every president who comes after. Whatever you think of the current administration — consider what this framework means in the hands of any future president, of either party, whose judgment you do not trust.
Sources: Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (July 1, 2024), 6-3. Sotomayor dissent (Kagan and Jackson joining). McConnell: Meet the Press, 2024. Nixon: David Frost interview, 1977.
VII. What This Asks of Us
The sharpest criticques of what I've described today have come from a senior Republican senator, a Republican president's ethics lawyer, a Republican Senate leader. Must court orders be followed? Will Congress assert its spending authority? Will federal agents face independent review? You deserve to know the answers.
The path forward runs through every House and Senate seat. The people who can tighten the laws, strengthen the roles of Congress and the Courts, and curb unchecked presidential power — they sit in Congress.
Ask how members of Congress will assure that Constitutional principles and the laws of the land apply to everyone, regardless of position or privilege.
One of the most effective tools you have as a citizen is your vote. Plan now to vote in every election.
Know the rules. Check your Secretary of State’s website, or ncsl.org.
Check your registration. Find your polling place (redistricting may have moved it.)
Plan your vote. If you vote by mail, request your ballot early, follow the envelope instructions exactly, and track it. Mail or cast your vote early.
Encourage others. Just ask: Are you registered? Do you know where your polling place is? Do you need a ride?
Let your state and local officials know you expect them to defend the Constitution and protect your vote.
Find nonpartisan voting information at Vote.org.
Vote for the principle that the law applies to everyone, in every office, at every level of power. Because when it stops restraining the powerful, it stops protecting the rest of us.
Vote like each vote is the most important vote you'll ever cast. Because for the safety and stability of this country, it may be.
Thank you for thinking about this carefully today.
Source Summary
U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §9 (Appropriations Clause); Fifth Amendment (Due Process).
Impoundment Control Act of 1974. GAO: 39 investigations, 6 rulings (May-September 2025). Comptroller General Dodaro, Senate Appropriations Committee, April 2025.
Judge McConnell, No. 1:25-cv-39 (D.R.I.), TRO January 31, violation finding February 10, preliminary injunction March 6, 2025.
NIH (1,800 grants, GAO August 2025). Head Start (PBS NewsHour, February 2025; FFYF March 2026, 65,000 children). USAID ($2B suspended, U.S. District Court, March 2025). Sen. Collins, Government Executive, August 29, 2025.
Washington Post analysis (57 of 165 rulings defied/delayed), July 21, 2025. Abrego Garcia v. Noem, unanimous, April 10, 2025. Boasberg, NPR/NBC News, April 16-17, 2025. ABC News flight records, April 3, 2025. Judge Schiltz, PBS NewsHour, January 29, 2026.
Renée Good: NYT (Mergen resignation, January 23, 2026); Blanche DOJ statement. Alex Pretti: BCA (FBI withholding evidence, February 16, 2026); Hennepin County M.E. (homicide, February 2, 2026). Silverio Villegas González: Illinois Accountability Commission (May 2026); ISP investigation May 6, 2026. Isaias Sanchez Barboza: CBP incident summary, December 17, 2025; PBS NewsHour (agent unidentified). Full case details in companion speech.
Reuveni whistleblower complaint (Washington Post; NationofChange, July 23, 2025). Bove nomination: multiple outlets, 2025. Judge AliKhan: NationofChange, July 23, 2025. Press Secretary Leavitt, January 2025.
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (July 1, 2024). Sotomayor dissent (Kagan, Jackson). McConnell: Meet the Press, 2024. Nixon/Frost, 1977.
NBC News poll (81% support court compliance), June 16, 2025. Reuters/Ipsos (majority: president must obey courts), March 25, 2025.
PBS News Feb 12, 2026 1:27 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The IRS erroneously shared the taxpayer information of thousands of people with the Department of Homeland Security, as part of the agencies' controversial agreement to share information on immigrants for the purpose of identifying and deporting people illegally in the U.S, according to a new court filing.
The revelation stems from a data-sharing agreement signed last April by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, which allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to submit names and addresses of immigrants inside the U.S. illegally to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records.
A declaration filed Wednesday by IRS Chief Risk and Control Officer Dottie Romo stated that the IRS was only able to verify roughly 47,000 of the 1.28 million names ICE requested.
For less than 5% of those individuals, the IRS gave ICE additional address information, potentially violating privacy rules created to protect taxpayer data.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/data-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-wrongly-shared-with-dhs-court-filing-says
The courts have determined that when the IRS shared roughly 47,000 names, along with last known addresses, with ICE on August 7, 2025, that was against the law.