Why you should care about due process

+ and expect better from local leaders that implicitly condone its dismissal

I tend to focus on hyperlocal issues, but sometimes, the bigger issues make their presence felt in our community. Let’s talk about government officials defying federal immigration law (particularly around due process), why that matters even for citizens, and what we know about the priorities of Chadds Ford residents for our elected officials.

Before we get into the weeds, a few things to note:

1. Due process is the fair treatment through the standard judicial system, especially a person's entitlement to notice of a charge and a hearing before an impartial judge. (It’s basically your chance to be innocent until proven guilty.)

2. “If you are a citizen and you are casting doubt on the importance of due process, remember this: you need due process in order to prove that you are a citizen.” From historian Timothy Snyder

3. The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization focused on empowering voters and defending democracy for over 100 years, has declared that the United States is in a constitutional crisis. This is deeply concerning.

4. Our local representative for the PA House, Craig Williams, appears to be here for the constitutional crisis. I am not. I hope I’m wrong about where he stands, but the legislation he seeks to sponsor is not promising.

Let’s dive in.

So what’s the local issue?

Craig Williams, our District 160 Representative in the PA State House, sends a periodic newsletter from his office. I tend to scroll through them without much bluster. He covers REAL ID requirements, shredding events, preserving open space in our area 🎉, local sports, and other interesting things happening in the district. However, the last couple of issues have had some notable inclusions.

A few weeks ago, I had to laugh when he mentioned discussing with local Cub Scouts what it takes to win elections:

“Curiously, they were most interested in what it takes to win elections – and the answer was entirely consistent with the Scout Oath and Law: serve other people at all times, know your core values and do your best to live them.”

Ha. 🤣 I’ll give him a pass for lying to little kids. But the answer is money. Big Money. No matter which party letter is next to your name.

In 2024, we learned that attention wins elections, too. But we have a laundry list of politicians who’ve proved beyond a reasonable doubt that character, class, qualifications, or ethics are not required for victory.

Sidenote: Shout out to the elected officials who take integrity and their responsibility to constituents seriously! We appreciate you.

Last week, things got more interesting in his newsletter. He described new legislation he plans to introduce by finishing with:

"Please join me in cosponsoring this important measure to hold government officials accountable for the foreseeable harm that result from defying federal immigration laws." (emphasis mine)

Great, Craig! You agree with our Supreme Court that the President and his administration shouldn't be violating federal immigration laws, particularly regarding due process, and that there is foreseeable harm associated with the abrogation of due process. I'm glad we're on the same page about that.

But whoopsies. Williams' legislation empowers ICE, the organization sending asylum seekers to El Salvador due to, in the words of the White House, "administrative errors." I’m no legal expert, but neither are most of his constituents who read his newsletter, so let’s decipher legal speak as best we can. Here’s what Williams writes:

“I will introduce legislation to establish a private cause of action against government officials for harm resulting from their willful disregard of federal immigration law, including lawfully issued immigration detainers filed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This legislation will create a statutory exception to sovereign and governmental immunity for public officials and government employees related to any harm suffered at the hands of an illegal immigrant who has been released from custody after failing to notify ICE of the illegal immigrant’s presence in the United States or failing to honor an ICE detainer.” (source)

From what I can gather, Craig's proposed rule seems to create opportunities for Pennsylvania residents to sue government officials if said residents believe unauthorized immigrants have harmed them after those immigrants have crossed paths with the legal system. His proposed legislation supports punishing elected officials for not complying with ICE, despite the factual evidence that ICE is violating the right to due process.

I have a few initial questions:

• What is harm? Am I harmed if an unauthorized immigrant takes the last box of Uncrustables at Wegmans, and I have to spend time and money driving to another grocery store to buy them for my kids?

• Why is my local Congressperson prioritizing legislation on this matter, which implicitly condones the foreseeable harm that will result from our federal officials defying federal immigration law? I’d like him to focus on more pressing issues in our community.

Violating due process per the Supreme Court

I agree that we desperately need immigration reform. However, the current administration's handling of the matter raises serious issues. That’s not my opinion; our conservative Supreme Court said so.

Not only did the Supreme Court effectively conclude 9-0 that many people were sent to El Salvador without due process and should be given due process (more on that below from Tangle), but on Friday night (or technically at 1:00 a.m. early Saturday morning), in a 7-2 decision¹, the Supreme Court issued a speedy opinion effectively telling the federal government they couldn’t deport anyone without due process.

The Court issued this opinion without waiting for the dissent to be finished, which is unusual, and in the middle of the night (also highly unusual). We can only assume that the Court acted expeditiously because it expected the Trump administration to repeat their trick of sneaking the plane out just before the order was issued, despite assurances from government lawyers that would not happen. That suggests our Supreme Court did not trust our federal government lawyers to tell the truth or follow the law. I'm genuinely curious to understand if that’s not really concerning to you.

What’s all this due process stuff about?

Before being deported, a person has the right to a court hearing to argue that they shouldn’t be deported. Let’s say the government wanted to deport me. I should get a court hearing to have a chance to say “Whoa. Wait. I’m allowed to live here. You can’t do that.”

The Trump administration argued that non-citizens don’t have the right to due process, and the conservative Supreme Court said, “Nah, buddy. Not true.” This legal fight has been personalized through the very public case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.

If you're interested, Ezra Klein summarizes the facts of the Abrego Garcia case at the beginning of this article. Klein leans liberal and writes for the New York Times, so some may have a tarnished perception of this coverage (though I think Klein is thoughtful and willing to criticize his party). In short, Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador without due process, and the government has yet to prove in court that he has committed any crime.

This article from

Emily Amick

lays out five reasons why “the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case is a particularly troubling intersection of authoritarian tactics.”

A Constitutional Crisis: How Trump’s Assault on the Rule of Law Puts Every American at Risk

This article from Tangle, a great non-partisan news site, offers the most comprehensive article on this issue I’ve seen so far. I highly encourage you to read it. Here are some poignant excerpts:

“In essence, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration needed to correct its admitted error of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador and attempt to get him home — without any dissents. But it also left some room open for the Trump administration to prevail in the lower courts if it says it has tried but simply cannot bring Abrego Garcia back, which you can read as a kind of victory — but only if your intent is to openly defy a court order and leave Abrego Garcia rotting in a Salvadoran prison.”

The article discusses various (empty, IMO) rebuttal points from Republican leaders. It specifically highlights the argument JD Vance makes that the United States doesn’t have sufficient resources to give due process to all the unauthorized immigrants currently here. While due process may be an expensive proposition, Tangle writes:

“Vance’s argument is also dangerous. It turns due process into some optional, squishy requirement that can be observed or denied by our government, based on what they say is possible with the resources they have or the public interest as they define it. Is that a can of worms he wants to open? That due process is now conditional? Does Vance or Trump ever imagine that Republicans will once again in the near future be in the political minority? Has that thought crossed their minds?

If Vance’s argument is that the government lacks the resources, then it can create them. This same administration is currently proposing a $1 trillion (with a “t”) military budget, including up to $150 billion of new funding to the Pentagon, and it’s paying the Salvadoran government $6 million to imprison Abrego Garcia and hundreds of others for one year. Why not put some of that money toward increasing the number of immigration judges to adjudicate these cases and clear the backlog?”

Tangle wraps all of this in a nice bow for us by saying:

“Just to put that all down clearly: The Trump administration is arguing that they cannot grant due process to every person due to resource and logistical constraints. They are also arguing that someone who ends up in a foreign prison because of the government’s own actions (or mistakes) is beyond their reach. They’ve deported some people who haven’t been accused of any crimes. And now they are suggesting they might start using this same process on U.S. citizens. If you put all of that together and don’t get extremely alarmed, then you are not paying attention.” (emphasis mine)

Let’s reiterate: “If you put all of that together and don’t get extremely alarmed, then you are not paying attention.”

I’m not arguing about this person’s right to be in the United States; I don’t have the information or expertise to make that determination. However, the Trump administration's principal conviction that he’s not entitled to due process before deportation should concern all of us².

Due process is the right to be innocent until proven guilty. It’s the foundation on which this country is built. To see due process at risk should be incredibly troubling for all of us. In the words of Timothy Snyder, a well-respected historian and expert on authoritarianism:

If you are a citizen and you are casting doubt on the importance of due process, remember this: you need due process in order to prove that you are a citizen. (source)

From the Trump administration's perspective, they’re probably right that Biden left them with a hot mess on immigration that will be expensive to clean up to their liking. Sometimes, you get stuck cleaning up someone else’s mess, but that doesn’t give you carte blanche to break the law.

Why does this matter in Chadds Ford?

I appreciate that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We haven’t seen the details of Williams’ proposed legislation, so I’m not going to dig into the specifics. The details don’t matter to me, because Williams should be expending his political capital elsewhere.

I want my local officials to focus their understandably limited bandwidth on the most pressing issues in our community. And around here, it’s not unauthorized immigration.

More importantly, I don’t want our local elected officials implicitly condoning the abuses of due process that our federal government seeks to normalize.

Most Americans agree that immigration is a serious issue that needs honest attention and resources. But proposing this legislation signals Williams’ approval of a federal government deportation process that is grossly violating human rights³ and making a mockery of due process.

Because remember, even if you’re a citizen, you need due process to prove that. Power wielded in your favor can and will eventually be used against you.

What matters more to Chadds Ford residents?

We only need to look back a few months to the discussions around a new middle school to know that the cost of living is a crucial issue to many residents of Chadds Ford. I sat in school board meetings while many neighbors spoke about the crushing impact of an average $42 annual tax increase for nine years to fund a new middle school.

Comm Convo: New middle school for our future leaders, dreamers, and achievers

If $42 per year in additional taxes creates the budgeting pain described in those school board meetings, any Congressperson in tune with their constituents would know that the cost of living is a very important issue. Surely someone struggling to afford $42/year in additional school taxes is very concerned about:

• the impact of tariffs, which the Budget Lab at Yale University says could impact families up to $3,800/year!

• their retirement investments as the market crumbles. Since Trump took office, the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq are down about 10%, 11%, and 13%, respectively⁴.

• rising energy bills. My PECO bills are up by more than $42 compared to last year each month! And federal cuts driven by DOGE are harming those most needing assistance with their bills.

• housing prices that continue to escalate. And DOGE is making housing costs even higher (not to mention the impact of tariffs on housing expenses).

Anyone who participated in the new middle school conversation saw that the cost of living was an extremely high priority for many of his Chadds Ford constituents. (No one talked about unauthorized immigration… just saying.)

Was Williams not aware of these heated discussions? Did he not care? Where is he on issues impacting the cost of living for his constituents?⁵ Why is he not prioritizing his legislative agenda on the economic topic that clearly struck a chord with his constituents?

What do I want from Williams?

I want my Congressperson to focus on the issues our community has identified as important to them through other municipal-adjacent conversations. I also don’t want him implicitly condoning the federal administration's current illegal interpretation and actions around immigration law.

I understand Craig Williams doesn’t have direct power over federal matters. However, states have power to be stalwarts of our Constitution. Especially in Pennsylvania, a purple state split by incredibly thin margins, just a few politicians can forge bipartisan coalitions to flip the script. And right now, we need to flip more than scripts (maybe some f*cking tables), because dismissing due process is a BFD.

What can you do?

On the 4th Wednesday of each month, a group plans to gather peacefully from 4 pm to 6 pm at Williams' office to let him know they expect him to protect our democracy and rights. This month's topic was "Due Process, No Nonsense!” I know you have already missed it, but there will be more in the future months.

If protesting is not your thing, that’s okay. Me neither. Send Williams’ office an email or give them a call to let them know you don’t support this proposed legislation, or you’d like him to focus on other, more pressing issues. If your experience is anything like mine, he won’t respond to you. 🙄 But maybe you’ll have a different experience. Here’s his contact information.

There are lots of ways to take action to strengthen our community and use our power to protect our Constitution. I hope you believe it’s worth protecting.

Small steps include building stronger bonds in our community, having difficult conversations to understand each other better, and arriving at compromises we can all live with (that don’t involve condoning the demise of due process). Here are some ideas to get you started, as well as a little survey you could complete to crowdsource more specific ideas.

What do you think?

Tell me what you think. Disagree with me? Let’s chat.

I'm not an expert. Having honest and potentially challenging conversations anchored in authenticity with our neighbors helps us understand each other, be critical thinkers, and makes our community a better place to live.

For everything happening in our country right now, the violation of due process feels the most frightening to me. We can fix the economy. We can (hopefully) repair relationships with allies and among each other. Especially in communities like Chadds Ford, where we have immense privilege, we can collectively and directly help our neighbors when they need it.

But dismissal of due process stops me in my tracks. The idea that you can be “convicted” of a crime at the whim of a despot leader is the cornerstone of fear that empowers authoritarians. Is that what you want from our government?

Shouldn’t our elected officials be concerned about this? Eventually, those who align (or pretend to align) with the current administration will be on the opposite side of a new administration.

Let’s not forget… even if authoritarian power is being wielded in your favor today, it will be used against you one day. I don't want to live in that country, state, or township. I hope you feel the same way, too.

1. The dissenting opinion noted its dissent for the timing of the opinion (it didn’t like the rush to publish in the middle of the night). It was silent on dissent against the matter of due process being judged. That silence is telling.

2. Abrego Garcia’s Maryland Senator, Chris Van Hollen, visited Abrego Garcia and said, “I am not defending the man. I'm defending the rights of this man to due process.” That’s the essence of the issue, and it's why it’s garnered national attention!

3. Human Rights Watch recently testified under oath about the inhumane conditions in the El Salvador prisons. (source)

4. He sounds like one hell of a businessman. Is he trying to make the United States of America the seventh organization he’s bankrupted?

5. He’s proposed legislation on cost-of-living issues in the past, like this piece, “Property Taxes for Multi-County School Districts,” which he co-sponsored with Democrat Christina Sappey.