More than 30 current and former faculty, representing positions across the political spectrum, signed a letter in their personal capacities, outlining their concerns the rule of law in the U.S. is in peril. They sent it to Nebraska Sens. Deb Fischer (from left) and Pete Ricketts, as well as Reps. Adrian Smith, Mike Flood and Don Bacon. JUSTIN WAN, Journal Star file photo

Chris Dunker – May 2, 2025 – Lincoln Journal Star

My cmnt: The editorial statement “representing positions across the political spectrum” is suspect, at best. I’m willing to wager that 90% of them are registered democrats or independents as 90% of teachers’ union members and trial lawyers are. The few Republicans, if any, to be found among them are undoubtedly RINOs and certainly not conservatives.

My cmnt: It is entirely laughable that a bunch of democrat law professionals would in anyway be concerned about the rule of law. Every last one of these co-signers favors mass illegal immigration, illegal so-called sanctuary cities and states, mass, illegal voting, criminal over victim rights, abortion on demand up to and beyond nine months, genital mutilation of children, and men in women’s sports and private places.

My cmnt: Where were these “concerned citizens” over the past four years of the Biden shadow presidency? Here is a brief, summarized list of democrat crimes and misdemeanors just over the past 8 years alone:

Democrats spent the last 8 years stripping Americans of due process to jail them for protected political activity; illegally spying on the Trump Campaign; manipulating and fabricating intelligence and then criminally leaking it for partisan gain; using the FBI and Intelligence apparatus to pursue political enemies; launching a coup against President Trump and his Administration; persecuting President Trump, his family, his aides and his supporters; censoring and deplatforming and blacklisting the opposition; removing opposition candidates from the ballot; maliciously fabricating false allegations to inflict outrageous financial punishments; raiding President Trump’s home and seizing his property; and weaponizing the entire legal system for the sole objective of incarcerating the Democrat Party’s chief political rival and seeking to illegally obstruct and rig the 2024 election.

My cmnt: Where were these civil rights crusaders when the democrats held show trials and locked up J6 participants – with no prior criminal anything – for years without bail or trials and placed them in solitary confinement without appeal??

My cmnt: Lee Enterprises which owns Left-leaning newspapers across the country (and the Lincoln Journal Star) has opposed President Trump’s agenda and person since 2015. It assumes the default position that only Left-Liberal thinking is truly to be admired and emulated. That thinking assumes the universe is eternal and god Chance created all life on earth. It is collectivist (i.e., communist) in its political-economic beliefs, atheist in its presuppositions, elitist in its social positions, Darwinist in its outlook, and condescending towards the mass of men.

My cmnt: Therefore I post this for its entertainment value and as illustration of political bias on display.

Faculty at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law are urging the state’s federal delegation to defend the rule of law, writing that several Trump administration actions have undermined the country’s legal and political systems.

More than 30 current and former faculty, representing positions across the political spectrum, signed the April 29 letter in their personal capacities, outlining what they described as a concern “that the rule of law in the United States is in peril.”

“(W)e urge you to be vigilant in its defense,” they wrote to Nebraska Sens. Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts, as well as Reps. Mike Flood, Don Bacon and Adrian Smith.

Eric Berger, a UNL professor of law whose area of expertise includes constitutional law and the First Amendment, said the faculty saw the letter “not at all a partisan issue but as a rule of law issue.”

“We felt in our role as law professors, it was important to stand up for the rule of law and to make the public aware of its role in preserving and sustaining society,” said Berger, who explained that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of UNL or his colleagues in the College of Law.

“We felt it was our duty to alert the public to these concerns and to call on our members of Congress to stand up for the rule of law,” he added.

The letter from the faculty at Nebraska Law raises four recent actions by the Trump administration as areas of concern.

Free speech concerns

The first area cited was the revocation of student visas held by individuals studying at colleges and universities across the U.S. “apparently based solely on the students’ exercise of their First Amendment rights of free speech.”

“The courts have made clear that citizens and non-citizens alike are protected by the First Amendment,” the letter states.

Thousands of students, including three currently studying at UNL, learned in April their F-1 status recorded in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS, had been terminated without them being afforded a reason or a hearing.

Several lawsuits said revoking the legal status of international students appeared aimed at driving those individuals out of the country. Trump administration officials have said they were targeting students involved in activities that “run counter” to U.S. interests.

In late March, federal immigration agents arrested Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University doctoral student from Turkey, near her home in Massachusetts and transported her to a detention facility in Louisiana.

Ozturk’s lawyers say the 30-year-old was apparently targeted for co-authoring an op-ed in the campus newspaper critical of the Israeli government, which legal experts said amounted to viewpoint discrimination. 

Berger said the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that First Amendment protections to free speech extend to all persons in the country through the “Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine.”

“Even if you do not have a right to a particular government benefit, the government cannot condition your receipt of that benefit in giving up your right to free speech,” Berger said.

Failure to provide due process

UNL faculty also said the Trump administration’s “failure to provide even minimal due process protections to immigrants” was another red flag.

In March, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old El Salvadoran man who had been living in the U.S. since he was 16, was accused by Maryland police and immigration officials of being affiliated with MS-13, a notorious El Salvadoran gang.

Abrego Garcia was later removed from the country and imprisoned in an El Salvadoran prison without a hearing. He remains there despite the Supreme Court ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the U.S.

The letter from the College of Law faculty said not granting Abrego Garcia a hearing has further eroded the rule of law in the U.S.

“That failure has resulted in an admission that mistakes were made and that individuals were deported without a proper basis for doing so, and yet no action has been taken to rectify the mistake,” the letter states.

Berger said affording citizens and noncitizens due process has dual purposes. First, it ensures the government “gets the right guy.” It also makes it clear “the government has the legal authority to do what it’s doing.”

“When an administration deports over 200 people without due process, it is also assuming significant powers without giving courts the opportunity to determine whether they have that power in the first place,” Berger said.

The letter, and Berger individually, said the government’s legal theory does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens, which suggests that it may not be averse to stripping citizens of their due process rights.

Separation of powers ignored

The third point raised in the letter focuses on what the faculty described as the Trump administration’s “systematic attacks on the federal judiciary and failure to fully comply with court orders, including rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.”

As numerous legal challenges have been filed, Berger said he and other faculty have been alarmed as Trump and those around him have attempted to delegitimize judges who have ruled against his administration.

In some instances, Trump and others have suggested judges who rule against the president should be impeached and removed from the bench.

“There are cases he will win and should win,” Berger said, “but the extent the administration has attacked fundamental rule of law principles is deeply disturbing, which is why 33 of us signed onto a letter identifying those problems.”

In April, a federal appeals court in Virginia led by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a conservative judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan, rebuked Trump for ignoring a lower court’s ruling ordering the administration to return Abrego Garcia to the country.

Wilkinson wrote the administration’s actions “come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around.”

Berger said all presidents “are sued for their policies from time to time,” and find varying success in the legal system. For a president to ignore a court’s order “raises questions of whether rule of law exists and whether the president believes himself to be all-powerful.”

“It’s really unprecedented for a president to insist that if he loses he can do what he wants,” Berger said. “It really poses the danger of the country veering into autocracy from a democracy.”

Attacks on lawyers

Since returning to office, Trump has targeted several law firms and lawyers he disagrees with, including several who have previously investigated the president, canceling government contracts or revoking security clearances.

The administration has also punished firms that have provided pro bono representation for causes the president opposes.

“The threat to the rule of law resulting from systematic attempts to retaliate against law firms whose only offense has been to zealously pursue their clients’ interests — an obligation we teach our students is the responsibility of a lawyer,” the faculty letter states.

Berger said the attacks could have a chilling effect that makes it more difficult for Americans to secure adequate legal representation in the future, and said supporters of the current administration should consider what would happen if another administration took similar actions.

“I think all Americans should ask themselves what their lives would look like if past or future generations could not go to court to challenge government actions that abuse power,” Berger said.

The letter closes with a similar sentiment.

“If the government can punish non-citizens for their speech today, it can do the same to citizens tomorrow,” the faculty wrote. “If the government can send non-citizens to an El Salvadoran prison without due process, it can do the same to citizens.

“If the government of today can abuse the law in one direction, a future government can use its force in the opposite direction,” it continues. “If an attorney is threatened for representing one interest today, she may be threatened for representing your interest tomorrow.”

In a statement, Taylor Gage, a spokesperson for Rep. Mike Flood, said “Congressman Flood supports the rule of law and believes in the independence of our courts and the separation of powers.”

“When a new administration takes office, there is often a flurry of litigation as opposing parties challenge new policies, and he expects that these matters will play out over time and that all parties will respect the decisions judges make,” the statement continued.

Rep. Don Bacon did not respond to an email on Friday from the Journal Star seeking comment. 

Richard Moberly, dean of the UNL College of Law, said he was proud of the faculty who used their personal time “to provide expert advice to our elected representatives” on issues of free speech and the rule of law.

“I wholeheartedly support their First Amendment right to do so, just as I wholeheartedly support the First Amendment rights of faculty who might issue public statements with contrary views,” Moberly said in a statement. “I am also gratified to live in a state with elected officials who are open to hearing from a wide variety of perspectives.”

==================================================

April 29, 2025
Dear Senator/Congressman,
We are current or emeritus faculty at the University of Nebraska College of Law. (We each sign
this letter in our personal capacities; our views do not purport to represent the position of the
University of Nebraska or its law school.) We are Democrats, Republicans, and independents; we
disagree with each other about many important legal and political issues. We have, however,
dedicated our careers to teaching the importance of the rule of law and the role the law plays in
sustaining our society. We are concerned that the rule of law is in peril, and we urge you to be
vigilant in its defense.
Our concerns arise from the following:

1. The revocation of student visas, apparently based solely on the students’ exercise of
   their First Amendment rights of free speech. The courts have made clear that citizens
   and non-citizens alike are protected by the First Amendment.
2. The failure to provide even minimal due process protections to immigrants prior to
   their deportation. That failure has resulted in an admission that mistakes were made
   and that individuals were deported without a proper basis for doing so, and yet no
   action has been taken to rectify the mistake.
3. The threat to the rule of law and separation of powers resulting from the systematic
   attacks on the federal judiciary and the failure to fully comply with court orders,
   including rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. The threat to the rule of law resulting from systematic attempts to retaliate against law
   firms whose only offense has been to zealously pursue their clients’ interests – an
   obligation we teach our students is the responsibility of a lawyer.
   These should be of concern to all Americans. If the government can punish non-citizens for
   their speech today, it can do the same to citizens tomorrow. If the government can send non-
   citizens to an El Salvadoran prison without due process, it can do the same to citizens. If the
   government of today can abuse the law in one direction, a future government can use its force in
   the opposite direction. If an attorney is threatened for representing one interest today, she may
   be threatened for representing your interest tomorrow.
   If our nation is going to check these federal abuses of power and restore the rule of law,
   Congress must play an active role. For the sake of preserving the Constitution and protecting
   future generations, we urge you, as our representative, to insist fully and actively on adherence to
   the rule of law and to exercise your authority accordingly.

Sincerely,
Eric Berger
Kristen Blankley
Jamie C. Cooper
Robert C. Denicola
Alan H. Frank
Daniel Gutman
Chelsi Hayden
Sydney Hayes
Lori Hoetger
Don Janssen
Danielle C. Jefferis
Brandon J. Johnson
Kyle Langvardt
Craig M. Lawson
Richard A. Leiter
Brian D. Lepard
Elsbeth Magilton
Matthew S. Novak
Stefanie Pearlman
Harvey Perlman
Sandra B. Placzek
Kevin Ruser
Robert Schopp
Anthony Schutz
A. Christal Sheppard
Jessica A. Shoemaker
Brett C. Stohs
Ryan Sullivan
Korey T. Taylor
Adam Thimmesch
Rachel Tomlinson Dick
Steven L. Willborn
Bob Works