1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

I am writing out of deep concern for the erosion of respect for judicial authority and the rule of law. The legitimacy of our constitutional system depends on a simple premise: when courts issue lawful orders, the executive complies. In the years leading up to the Declaration of Independence, American colonists withdrew cooperation from British legal institutions not because they rejected law itself, but because those institutions no longer operated in good faith. Courts became instruments of power rather than impartial arbiters. Civic participation broke down only after legitimacy did. That history matters now. When an administration signals that compliance with judicial orders is discretionary, it raises a profound civic question: if court rulings are optional for those in power, what obligation remains for ordinary citizens to sustain the system through jury service, testimony, and civic trust? This is not a call for disengagement. It is a warning about consequences when legitimacy is allowed to erode. Recent public reporting has heightened concern that judicial orders are being slow-walked, ignored, or selectively enforced. Whether the issue involves immigration enforcement, document disclosure, or executive accountability, the pattern matters more than any single case. The perception that court orders apply only when convenient is corrosive to democratic governance. I am asking you to act clearly and publicly. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to defend the judiciary as a co-equal branch. That includes oversight, transparency demands, and unambiguous statements that lawful court orders must be followed—without exception. History shows that systems fail not when citizens become unruly, but when institutions abandon their own rules. Please use your office to reaffirm that the rule of law is not optional and that judicial authority is not subject to executive preference.