Social Work Policy Practice

Tag: legislative safeguards

  • Racism isn’t partisan: It’s a hierarchy of whiteness

    Racism isn’t partisan: It’s a hierarchy of whiteness

    Racism is not a partisan “weapon” but a structural hierarchy rooted in white supremacy, designed to privilege whiteness through laws, institutions, and norms. Professional bodies define racism as a system of advantage sustained by policies and practices that disproportionately benefit white populations while disadvantaging Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (American Psychological Association, 2021). This framing predates modern party politics: the United States was built on enslavement, settler colonialism, and legalized segregation that organized society around racial hierarchy. The question, then, is whether contemporary policy choices dismantle or reinforce that hierarchy—not whether one party “uses” racism (American Psychological Association, 2021; Feagin, 2014).

    To understand how deeply embedded this hierarchy is, we must look at its legal foundations. White supremacy establishes whites as a ruling class by normalizing white culture as the default and embedding racial hierarchy in law, property, and opportunity. Long before the 1790 Naturalization Act, colonial legislatures had already codified racial distinctions into law. A. Leon Higginbotham’s In the Matter of Color (1978) documents how 17th‑ and 18th‑century statutes in colonies such as Virginia and Maryland defined slavery as a hereditary condition tied to African descent, restricted interracial marriage, and imposed penalties on free Black people that did not apply to whites. These colonial codes institutionalized racial hierarchy at the local level, laying the foundation for systemic white supremacy that federal law later nationalized. From these early statutes through Jim Crow, racial status determined who could own land, vote, and accumulate wealth, structuring generations of advantage and disadvantage (Higginbotham, 1978; Feagin, 2014). Civil rights gains of the mid‑20th century were corrective measures designed to constrain that hierarchy; weakening them reopens pathways to stratification that place people of color into servant roles while preserving white dominance (Feagin, 2014; American Psychological Association, 2021).

    This history also exposes why claims of “colorblind” fairness are misleading. Assertions that success depends only on “meeting the standard” ignore evidence that standards themselves are filtered through bias. A landmark field experiment found resumes with Black‑identifying names received fewer callbacks than identical resumes with white‑identifying names—demonstrating that merit signals are not assessed neutrally (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). The study also showed that increased qualifications did less to improve outcomes for Black‑identified applicants, revealing a penalty attached to racialized identity rather than competence. In other words, colorblindness can legitimize biased gatekeeping, while DEI and civil rights enforcement make merit legible by clarifying criteria, expanding access, and checking discriminatory filters (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Bonilla‑Silva, 2014).

    The consequences of ignoring these systemic filters are visible in current policy debates. Efforts to abolish diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), narrow disparate‑impact enforcement, or rescind equity directives weaken the mechanisms that counteract racial hierarchy. Analysts warn that such rollbacks move the nation back toward pre‑civil rights norms by eroding protections, oversight, and accountability—conditions under which racial hierarchy organizes labor and status, effectively positioning people of color as a servant class while maintaining whites as a ruling class (Berry, 2025; Center for American Progress, 2024). Empirical evidence also shows that affirmative action and compliance tools expanded opportunity for women—especially white women—demonstrating these policies do not privilege one race but broaden fair access across groups (Leonard, 1990; Kurtulus, 2013). Removing them narrows pathways and entrenches hierarchy.

    Recognizing this pattern clarifies what genuine fairness requires. It is not enough to claim neutrality; fairness demands clear standards and active safeguards that ensure those standards are applied without bias. That includes transparent criteria, validated selection tools, accountability for disparate outcomes, and proactive inclusion strategies that counter systemic filters rather than pretending they do not exist (American Psychological Association, 2021). This is not partisan—it is the minimum required to dismantle a hierarchy that otherwise reproduces advantage. Without such safeguards, “neutral” policies re‑create racialized stratification, and the rhetoric of colorblindness becomes a cover for returning to a servant/ruling class order (Bonilla‑Silva, 2014; Berry, 2025).

    Taken together, the evidence shows that racism is a manifestation of white supremacy—a structural hierarchy of whiteness—not a tactic of Democrats or Republicans. Recent rollbacks that weaken civil rights and DEI tools reinforce that hierarchy, risking a return to pre‑civil rights conditions that organize society into ruling and servant classes by race (American Psychological Association, 2021; Berry, 2025; Center for American Progress, 2024).

    References
    American Psychological Association. (2021). APA resolution on racism. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-racism
    Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561
    Berry, M. (2025, January 15). Civil rights at risk: The rollback of DEI initiatives. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
    Bonilla‑Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists: Color‑blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
    Center for American Progress. (2024, December 10). The attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. https://www.americanprogress.org
    Feagin, J. R. (2014). Racist America: Roots, current realities, and future reparations (3rd ed.). Routledge.
    Higginbotham, A. L. (1978). In the matter of color: Race and the American legal process, the colonial period. Oxford University Press.
    Kurtulus, F. A. (2013). Affirmative action and the utilization of minorities and women: A longitudinal analysis 1973–2003. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(3), 462–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21698
    Leonard, J. S. (1990). The impact of affirmative action on employment. Journal of Labor Economics, 8(2), S263–S276. https://doi.org/10.1086/298225

  • Weaponized Justice and the Rise of Authoritarianism: Presidential Immunity, DOJ Retaliation, and the Erosion of Democratic Guardrails

    Weaponized Justice and the Rise of Authoritarianism: Presidential Immunity, DOJ Retaliation, and the Erosion of Democratic Guardrails

    The convergence of politicized indictments under the Trump Administration, the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, and the global resurgence of authoritarian regimes reflects a troubling erosion of democratic norms. Though distinct in context and scale, these developments reveal how legal and institutional tools can be repurposed to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and weaken pluralism. President Donald Trump’s 2028 campaign strategy—anchored in constitutional defiance, populist grievance, and institutional dominance—further aligns the United States with global patterns of democratic backsliding. Meanwhile, Congress, despite holding the constitutional authority to intervene, has remained conspicuously inert. That silence is amplified by the Heritage Foundation’s ideological blueprint, which champions a robust, centralized executive as the cornerstone of American governance.

    Presidential Immunity and the Collapse of Accountability

    In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court shattered nearly 250 years of precedent by ruling that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for criminal prosecution related to official acts, and presumptive immunity for all acts carried out under the color of office. Chief Justice John Roberts declared that the president “alone composes a branch of government,” granting expansive control over the Department of Justice—including the power to initiate or dismiss prosecutions at will. This ruling effectively placed the president above the law, even as it carved out a narrow exception for “unofficial acts” (PBS NewsHour, 2024; Center for American Progress, 2025).

    Legal scholars and historians swiftly condemned the decision. James Iredell, a founding‑era jurist, had insisted in 1788 that “[if the president] commits any crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country” (Brennan Center for Justice, 2024). That principle guided generations of jurisprudence, including the unanimous decision in United States v. Nixon (1974), which affirmed that “no person, not even the President, is above the law” (The Court Said, 2024). Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warned that the ruling permits a president to “violate the law, exploit the trappings of office for personal gain, and use official power for evil ends”—without fear of prosecution (Center for American Progress, 2025).

    Six months into Trump’s second term, her warning has proved prophetic. The Department of Justice, now firmly under executive control, has pursued felony charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—both political adversaries—while dismissing Trump’s own indictments. In Comey’s case, the charges focused on his handling of FBI memos and testimony before Congress, despite the DOJ under both Trump and Biden previously declining to prosecute him. The immunity ruling has not only insulated the president from accountability; it has emboldened a retaliatory legal regime that mirrors the impunity mechanisms of authoritarian states (NPR, 2025).

    The Department of Justice as a Tool of Retaliation

    The Trump Administration’s use of the DOJ to pursue political opponents marks a profound departure from norms of prosecutorial independence. In October 2025, the DOJ indicted Letitia James on charges of bank fraud and false statements—allegations widely criticized as retaliatory, given her successful civil prosecution of Trump’s business empire. The indictment was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, bypassing New York’s jurisdiction and raising alarms about forum shopping and selective prosecution (PBS NewsHour, 2025).

    Similarly, James Comey was indicted on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding—despite the DOJ previously declining to pursue such cases. These prosecutions, paired with the dismissal of Trump’s own indictments—including 34 counts in New York, 40 federal charges related to classified documents, and 13 RICO charges in Georgia—signal a shift from legal accountability to political retribution (Ballotpedia, 2025).

    This weaponization of the DOJ mirrors tactics used in authoritarian regimes, where legal systems are deployed to silence dissent and protect ruling elites. The chilling effect on prosecutors, judges, and public officials is already visible, as investigations into executive misconduct stall or are quietly abandoned. What is unfolding in the United States is not an isolated anomaly but part of a broader global pattern.

    Global Authoritarianism and Legal Impunity

    Globally, authoritarian regimes have gained traction by exploiting democratic vulnerabilities. According to Freedom House (2022), 38 percent of the world’s population now lives in “Not Free” countries—the highest proportion since 1997. In countries like Russia, Nicaragua, and Turkey, leaders have manipulated courts, criminalized dissent, and weaponized law enforcement to maintain control.

    In Nicaragua, opposition candidates have been arrested and barred from elections. In Sudan, military coups have reversed democratic progress. In Afghanistan, elected governments have collapsed under authoritarian rule. These regimes often maintain a veneer of legality, using courts, police, and media to legitimize repression. The erosion of judicial independence and the normalization of politically motivated prosecutions are central to this trend.

    Justice Luís Roberto Barroso of Brazil’s Supreme Court describes this phenomenon as “authoritarian populism,” where charismatic leaders exploit public disillusionment to dismantle democratic institutions from within (Harvard Kennedy School, 2025). He warns that elected leaders now deconstruct democracy using the very tools designed to protect it—courts, constitutions, and law enforcement.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and the Trump Administration’s retaliatory prosecutions echo these global patterns. By insulating the president from criminal accountability and weaponizing the DOJ, the United States risks joining the ranks of democracies in decline.

    Heritage Foundation’s Doctrine of Executive Supremacy

    The Supreme Court’s ruling and the DOJ’s politicization align with the Heritage Foundation’s long‑standing advocacy for a strong, centralized executive. In its commentary, Heritage argues that the unitary executive is “one of the most brilliant innovations in the Constitution,” enabling “prompt, clear, and consistent action” (Canaparo, 2019). Former Attorney General William Barr, echoing this view, warned that executive authority has been “smothered by the encroachments of the other branches,” and described opposition to Trump’s presidency as a “war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”

    This ideology is codified in Heritage’s Project 2025—a blueprint for consolidating executive power, dismantling regulatory agencies, and replacing career civil servants with loyalists. While Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 during the 2024 campaign, its principles now underpin both his administration’s governance and his 2028 campaign strategy (Wikipedia, 2025).

    Trump’s 2028 Campaign Strategy: Defiance and Entrenchment

    President Trump’s 2028 campaign strategy builds on legal insulation, ideological support for executive supremacy, and the DOJ’s retaliatory posture. Its key elements include:

    • Constitutional defiance. Trump has publicly flirted with seeking a third term despite the 22nd Amendment’s two‑term limit. In a 2025 interview, he remarked, “So, you say during the war, you can’t have elections?”—suggesting that wartime conditions could justify suspending electoral processes (Policy Magazine, 2025).

    • Populist grievance and cult of personality. The campaign frames Trump as the singular defender of “real America,” using slogans like “Only I Can Fix It—Again.” This messaging mirrors authoritarian populism abroad, where leaders claim exclusive legitimacy and vilify institutions as corrupt or elitist (Harvard Kennedy School, 2025).

    • Institutional dominance. Trump’s control over the DOJ, Supreme Court, and key federal agencies enables him to suppress opposition and shape legal narratives. The 2024 immunity ruling and Heritage’s doctrine of executive supremacy are central to this strategy.

    • Electoral disruption. The campaign has hinted at delaying or delegitimizing the 2028 election if “national security” or “civil unrest” justifies it—echoing tactics used in authoritarian regimes to extend tenure beyond constitutional limits (Politico, 2025).

    Together, these elements illustrate a campaign not merely seeking reelection but actively reshaping the constitutional order to entrench executive power.

    Congressional Authority and Republican Inaction

    The Constitution furnishes Congress with two principal remedies to counteract executive overreach: impeachment and conviction, and legislation to clarify or recalibrate interbranch boundaries. In theory, Congress could define statutory approaches that narrow immunity’s practical reach, specify procedures for independent oversight, or establish special counsels with protected jurisdiction. It could also pursue impeachment for abuses of power that, even if immunized criminally as official acts, remain politically sanctionable.

    Yet despite these remedies, the Republican‑controlled Congress has sat on its hands. No impeachment inquiry has been initiated, and no serious legislative effort has emerged to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling or the Department of Justice’s politicized prosecutions. Bills proposed by minority Democrats to codify limits on presidential immunity have stalled in committee, with Republican leadership declining to hold hearings or votes (Politico, 2025).

    This inaction is not neutral; it is a political choice that signals tacit approval of executive impunity. By refusing to act, the Republican majority has allowed the executive branch to consolidate power unchecked, undermining the separation of powers and enabling authoritarian drift.

    Conclusion: A Constitutional Crossroads

    The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling marks a constitutional rupture. It abandons centuries of precedent affirming that presidents are subject to the rule of law. Trump’s 2028 campaign strategy—built on defiance, grievance, and institutional dominance—further blurs the line between democracy and authoritarianism. Heritage’s ideological endorsement of executive supremacy provides intellectual cover, while Congress, despite its constitutional mandate, has abdicated its role as a check on executive power. The DOJ’s transformation into a tool of political retaliation completes the authoritarian arc.

    As Justice Sotomayor warned, “Let the President violate the law… Because if he knew that he may one day face liability… he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be” (Center for American Progress, 2025). The United States now stands at a constitutional crossroads. Will it reaffirm the principle that no one is above the law—or will it follow the path of authoritarian regimes, where justice serves power rather than the people? The answer will depend not only on courts and presidents, but on whether Congress, civil society, and the electorate are willing to reclaim the guardrails of accountability before they collapse entirely.

    References

    Ballotpedia. (2025). Donald Trump indictments, 2023–2025. https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump_indictments,_2023-2025

    Brennan Center for Justice. (2024). History proves that presidents can be held accountable. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-proves-presidents-can-be-held-accountable

    Canaparo, G. (2019, December 2). Founders wanted a powerful president. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/founders-wanted-powerful-president

    Center for American Progress. (2025). Trump v. United States: Revisiting the presidential immunity ruling 1 year later. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-v-united-states-revisiting-the-presidential-immunity-ruling-1-year-later

    Freedom House. (2022). Freedom in the world 2022: The global expansion of authoritarian rule. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule

    Harvard Kennedy School. (2025). Democracy in the shadow of the global rise in authoritarian populism. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/democracy-shadow-global-rise-authoritarian-populism

    NPR. (2025, October 5). Supreme Court’s decision on presidential power casts a shadow on its new term. https://www.iowapublicradio.org/news-from-npr/2025-10-05/supreme-courts-decision-on-the-presidential-power-casts-a-shadow-on-its-new-term

    PBS NewsHour. (2024, July 1). Key facts from the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and how it affects presidential power. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/key-facts-from-the-supreme-courts-immunity-ruling-and-how-it-affects-presidential-power

    PBS NewsHour. (2025, October 2). Trump DOJ indicts New York Attorney General Letitia James. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-doj-indicts-letitia-james

    Policy Magazine. (2025, October 3). Is 2028 the endgame of Trump’s rampage? https://www.policymagazine.ca/is-2028-the-endgame-of-trumps-rampage

    Politico. (2025, January 31). How Trump could snatch a third term — despite the 22nd Amendment. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/31/trump-defy-constitution-third-term-00200239

    The Court Said. (2024). United States v. Nixon: Presidential power and accountability. https://thecourtsaid.org/united-states-v-nixon-presidential-power-and-accountability

    Wikipedia. (2025). Project 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

    Intellectual Property Statement

    This work is the original intellectual property of DeMecia Wooten‑Irizarry. It reflects my analysis, voice, and authorial fingerprint, developed through my professional expertise, scholarship, and lived experience. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or adapted without my explicit written consent. Any quotations, references, or citations must credit me as the author. This statement affirms my right to control the use, reproduction, and dissemination of my work in all formats, including digital, print, and derivative adaptations.

  • Escalation, Emergency Powers, and the Need for Congressional Safeguards

    How historical precedent and statutory limits should shape legislative oversight of domestic force and emergency authorities

    Historical precedent: The escalation of state power that first targets a defined group and then broadens repression has clear precedent in twentieth‑century Germany. Scholarly histories document how exclusionary laws, administrative measures, and policing practices removed civil liberties from Jewish populations and then expanded to political opponents and other vulnerable groups as authoritarian control merged (Shirer, 1960; Evans, 2003; Friedlander, 1997; Browning, 1992).

    Military and domestic law‑enforcement limits: Federal law generally prohibits routine use of the U.S. Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement (Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385); the Insurrection Act contains narrowly defined statutory exceptions permitting federal military action under specific conditions (Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255). State National Guard deployments are governed by state law when under gubernatorial control and change legal status when federalized.

    Limited legal bases for executive emergency responses: The President may declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act, which activates specified statutory authorities delegated by Congress and is subject to congressional review and termination procedures (National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.). Other statutory authorities relevant to extraordinary domestic actions include disaster and public‑health statutes, economic mobilization authorities, and homeland‑security and immigration statutes that authorize agency responses within defined limits (Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq.; Defense Production Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.; Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.). Executive action remains subject to constitutional and judicial review, including limits described in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579 (1952)).

    Oversight imperatives: For any extraordinary domestic deployments or enforcement operations, oversight should verify the legal authority invoked; the factual predicate for invoking emergency or Insurrection Act exceptions; chain of command and control status (state versus federal); safeguards for civil liberties and non‑discrimination; and transparency measures and reporting provided to Congress and affected communities.

    References

    Browning, C. R. (1992). Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq. (1950).

    Evans, R. J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

    Friedlander, S. (1997). Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1933–1945. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255.

    National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (1976).

    Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

    Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq. (1988).

    Shirer, W. L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).