
The Trump Administration’s Double Standard of Justice
A federal judge will decide next month whether the U.S. legal system treats presidential allies differently from presidential antagonists.

A special project on the constitutional debates in American life, in partnership with the National Constitution Center
This work was commissioned, produced, and edited by The Atlantic's editorial staff. Support for this work was provided in part by the organizations listed here.
Support for this project was provided by the Madison Initiative of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

A federal judge will decide next month whether the U.S. legal system treats presidential allies differently from presidential antagonists.

Proposals from libertarian, conservative, and progressive scholars displayed a few striking differences—but also some profound similarities.

The courts have refused to be made pawns in President Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.

These lawsuits have upended courts’ role in interpreting voting laws.

It never has.

What the president and his lawyers have been attempting to do deserves punishment that will likely never come.

The path lies not in legislation but through the deregulation of mifepristone—the only drug the FDA has approved to safely and effectively terminate an early pregnancy.

The president’s abuse of his clemency power is an assault on one of the few truly humane aspects of the American legal system.

Each day, it becomes more urgent that Republicans and conservatives speak in defense of institutions and in defiance of the president’s posture.

The legislative branch is constitutionally charged with checking abuses in the executive branch—and it must act to ensure a smooth transition.