Saving democracy apparently requires a collection department. Before Americans finish casting their ballots, one proposal for the next Democratic majority already identifies a promising destination for political combat: Stephen Miller’s bank account.
An October 28 National News Brief opinion column argues that Democrats should create a civil cause of action that lets people harmed by executive branch abuses sue federal officials for damages.
Trump has no use for pretense, and he’s not interested in playing along. He thinks he is a law unto himself; that he holds sovereign authority over the entire country; that he can rule by decree and punish those who resist. As one would expect, his administration has been an exercise in breaking the law, exceeding its bounds and violating its spirit. His lawyers may dutifully argue that their client is acting within his lawful authority, but the character of his actions betrays contempt for the law itself.
His basic approach, in fact, is to ignore or break the law and hope that the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court will use his lawbreaking to advance its pet ideological projects. Chief Justice John Roberts, to use just one example, is preoccupied with the expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress. And it seems that in his view, an erratic, lawless president is a small price to pay for summoning the unitary executive into existence.
Then comes the revealing sales pitch: Even if Miller can’t be held criminally accountable, Democrats could help “drain his bank account.”
That’s an opinion writer’s recommendation, not an adopted Democratic platform. It nevertheless offers a useful look at the punishment some Trump opponents want their party to pursue after the election. The proposed remedy arrives with a named political enemy and an anticipated financial result.
Normally, a discussion about compensating victims begins with the victims. Who suffered an injury? Which right did an official violate? What evidence connects the official to the harm? How should a court calculate compensation?
Those questions require patient work. Announcing whose bank account you’d like emptied supplies a much quicker emotional reward, especially for an audience already convinced that serving President Donald Trump constitutes evidence of wrongdoing.
Recommended: The Referee Test: Count the Minutes, and Then Examine the Missing Stories.
Civil accountability has a real legal history. In 1971, the Supreme Court recognized a damages remedy against federal agents for certain Fourth Amendment violations in Bivens. In Egbert v. Boule (2022), the Court rejected extending that remedy to the claims before it and emphasized that creating new causes of action generally belongs to Congress.
The same decision discussed the danger that personal financial exposure and harassing litigation could inhibit officials from carrying out their duties. A government employee weighing a difficult decision might also have to consider spending years defending his family’s finances.
That’s the danger in marketing a legal remedy through a political opponent’s prospective ruin. A law written to compensate proven injuries requires standards that apply regardless of the defendant’s party. A campaign to empty Miller’s accounts encourages supporters to judge the machinery by whether it produces the desired target’s misery.
Consider the signal sent to someone weighing a government job. The salary is public, the hours are long, and your opponents promise that an election defeat could bring a fresh effort to reach your personal assets. They don’t have to persuade you that they’ll win every case; they only have to make you wonder how much defending yourself could cost.
Wealthy officials may find donors, lawyers, or other support. Someone with a mortgage, college bills, and aging parents may simply decline the appointment. Political movements that celebrate such pressure should explain why public service ought to become an activity reserved for people who can finance a prolonged legal siege.
Congressional candidates can answer concrete questions before Tuesday’s midterms. Would they support a new federal damages law? What conduct would trigger liability? Would the standards govern officials of either party? What safeguards would prevent policy disputes from becoming campaigns of personal financial punishment?
Ask those questions before anyone starts celebrating an empty bank account. The wording of a statute, the evidence required in court, and the protections against abusive claims matter far more than the satisfaction of watching an opponent hire a lawyer.
An election grants authority to govern within constitutional limits. It shouldn’t become a permission slip to design the punishment first and fill in the legal theory afterward. Voters can recognize the difference, even when the packaging says democracy.
Miller’s critics can challenge his policies, contest administration actions in court, and campaign against the president he serves. When they pitch personal financial destruction as democracy’s repair kit, they’ve supplied a reason to examine their own ambitions for power.
Americans need to hear that sales pitch clearly before handing its admirers the keys.
When political punishment gets packaged as democratic renewal, somebody needs to inspect the contents. Help PJ Media keep asking uncomfortable questions. Join PJ Media VIP with promo code FIGHT.
