Where IJ Stands On Executive Abuses

I don’t need to tell you that news of what is happening at the federal level these days is moving fast and furiously. At times, it’s hard to keep up with the latest and to sort out the good from the bad from the ugly. 

As you know, IJ has always adhered to a strictly nonpartisan stance.  You will never see us doing the bidding of a political party and certainly not of any political figure. Likewise, IJ does not get involved in trendy causes du jour to try to gain attention, nor do we typically issue broad policy statements about current controversies. Rather, we adhere to our long-term mission in our areas of expertise. 

But when we see an opportunity to defend individual rights and challenge abuses of power that are within our wheelhouse, we don’t just talk about it—we take action, no matter who is in power.  

For instance, we filed three lawsuits against federal administrative agencies overseen by the Biden Administration. Indeed, we first challenged the executive branch in 1997 and have filed cases against every single administration since then.

So you won’t be surprised to know that we are likewise following carefully the actions of the current administration, and we have already begun to push back to defend constitutional rights and the separation of powers. We recently joined with other nonprofit organizations on briefs in opposition to the Trump Administration’s blatantly retaliatory policy against certain law firms it views as political enemies. Those cases squarely implicate IJ’s longstanding efforts, including our U.S. Supreme Court victory in Gonzalez v. Trevino, to make it more difficult for government officials to retaliate against and punish their political opponents. 

And as spelled out elsewhere this issue, IJ has just challenged a new financial surveillance policy brought about by this administration that requires many small businesses in border states to provide reports on virtually all cash transactions, including completely innocuous acts like getting a money order to pay rent. Although ostensibly aimed at fighting cartels, the reporting requirements will sweep in thousands of innocent people and are burdensome enough to kill many of these businesses. 

IJ is also fully prepared to challenge arguments that seek to overturn so-called birthright citizenship. Not only is that issue important in itself, but a wrong outcome in that case could negatively impact our other litigation under the ever-vital protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Moreover, IJ will continue to speak out on the crucial need for an independent judiciary that is not afraid to rein in the excesses of the executive and legislative branches. Our Center for Judicial Engagement has long argued for that very thing, and we will be even more outspoken on the subject, especially if the administration starts defying court orders and rulings. 

Although we will not hesitate to challenge executive branch excesses, we will also take advantage of opportunities to work with the current administration if circumstances dictate. As an example, the White House recently issued an executive order to agency heads to rescind anticompetitive regulations, and we plan on submitting commentary to steer that review to hopefully pro-freedom outcomes.

Rest assured, IJ will keep monitoring activities to capitalize on positive changes and to fearlessly challenge abuses where we have institutional expertise. Also know that once we commit to a case, IJ will never be cowed into silence nor into dropping litigation that challenges what is happening today, no matter how intense the pressure might get. 

IJ will always remain vigilant, bold, and principled.

Scott Bullock is IJ’s president and chief counsel.