(at left) - ‘The Fix’ suggests responses to help safeguard the democratic system. (at right) - Michigan Law professor and former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade’s latest book is ‘The Fix: Saving America From the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government.’
By Bob Needham
Michigan Law
A new book by Professor Barbara McQuade, ’91, argues that the actions of the current presidential administration threaten the practice of democracy in the United States and also offers ideas to oppose that threat.
In “The Fix: Saving America From the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government” (Seven Stories Press, 2026), McQuade draws on her background as a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan to analyze the workings of the administration—and to suggest responses to help safeguard the democratic system.
McQuade recently answered five questions about the book:
—————
1. How did this book come about?
The start of Donald Trump’s second term was so immediately, starkly different from his first. He began doing things like pulling grant funding, extorting law firms, and threatening universities.
I thought, “This is the kind of thing I saw organized crime engaged in when I was a prosecutor.” That’s what motivated writing the book.
I try to use some stories from my work as a prosecutor to illustrate the comparisons and the lessons that can be drawn from that. For example, when people go along with the extortionist, they think they’re going to solve the problem by paying them off one time.
What I saw again and again is that the extortionist just keeps coming back for more.
That is not the way to beat the bully. You really have to band together through collective action to stand up and push back. I’m hopeful that I share some lessons about techniques that work and don’t work when you try to resist that kind of abuse of power.
—————
2. What is the state of the rule of law in the US in 2026?
I think the rule of law is in trouble. I wouldn’t say it’s destroyed. I think courts are still applying the law and issuing orders—sometimes in favor of the administration, many times against the administration.
One thing I worry about is the extent to which the president attacks judges who rule against him as lunatics or rogue judges.
Attacking judges undermines public confidence in the rule of law. It makes people less likely to comply with the law. It makes people less likely to report crimes to law enforcement, because they don’t trust the system.
I think it also risks that people will engage in vigilante violence and take law into their own hands.
If we see the administration, or others at high levels, not following the rules, how do we enforce them? The social contract is that even when we disagree with a court ruling, we obey.
We may have the power to change it, by petitioning Congress or appealing, but we can’t just blatantly disregard a legal decision that we don’t like.
—————
3. How does the Supreme Court’s use of the so-called shadow docket fit into the bigger picture?
The increasing use of the emergency docket, or shadow docket, has a detrimental effect on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Historically, the emergency docket has been used to provide emergency relief to prevent a bad thing from happening before the court could get to it. But what we’re seeing more and more is the granting of these emergency petitions—especially when they’re brought by the administration—and sometimes the court making decisions without a full briefing.
What we’re seeing now are these per curiam opinions, which are considered temporary and might be just a paragraph, but which sometimes change established law. If we’re going to change the law, let’s brief it, let’s read about it, let’s see an oral argument, and let’s see a full opinion that says we’re overturning decades of precedent.
—————
4. One chapter in your book focuses on creating “guardrails” for democracy, such as reforming ethics rules and election laws. Is that the most important piece of how we move forward?
We can help ourselves by building some guardrails that will make it more difficult for a president, whoever comes next, to abuse their power. President Trump has shown us where some of those gaps are. There are changes we can make and regulations we can adopt, at the Department of Justice and elsewhere.
Most important, though, is a piece of advice I was given when I served as U.S. attorney: If you want to avoid management problems, hire good people. That is also true when it comes to electing presidents and other leaders.
We need to pay attention to more than our 401(k). We need to pay attention to who is going to safeguard our democracy, who is going to adhere to the rule of law, who is going to respect the free press.
—————
5. Many of your proposed solutions would require congressional action. Do you see that happening?
I think that as we go forward, there is room for compromise. We do see that from time to time. One of the things that I think was encouraging in some ways was the way members of Congress came together over the release of the Epstein files.
Another area where we’ve seen some movement is internet safety for children. Also, the world has become so unaffordable to many Americans; I think there’s room for common ground there.
So often in recent years, the two parties seem to be looking for areas of conflict. Instead of focusing on those issues, where can we find common ground on things that we can achieve? I think voters have the right to demand those kinds of things, and we should demand those things from our elected leaders.
Michigan Law
A new book by Professor Barbara McQuade, ’91, argues that the actions of the current presidential administration threaten the practice of democracy in the United States and also offers ideas to oppose that threat.
In “The Fix: Saving America From the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government” (Seven Stories Press, 2026), McQuade draws on her background as a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan to analyze the workings of the administration—and to suggest responses to help safeguard the democratic system.
McQuade recently answered five questions about the book:
—————
1. How did this book come about?
The start of Donald Trump’s second term was so immediately, starkly different from his first. He began doing things like pulling grant funding, extorting law firms, and threatening universities.
I thought, “This is the kind of thing I saw organized crime engaged in when I was a prosecutor.” That’s what motivated writing the book.
I try to use some stories from my work as a prosecutor to illustrate the comparisons and the lessons that can be drawn from that. For example, when people go along with the extortionist, they think they’re going to solve the problem by paying them off one time.
What I saw again and again is that the extortionist just keeps coming back for more.
That is not the way to beat the bully. You really have to band together through collective action to stand up and push back. I’m hopeful that I share some lessons about techniques that work and don’t work when you try to resist that kind of abuse of power.
—————
2. What is the state of the rule of law in the US in 2026?
I think the rule of law is in trouble. I wouldn’t say it’s destroyed. I think courts are still applying the law and issuing orders—sometimes in favor of the administration, many times against the administration.
One thing I worry about is the extent to which the president attacks judges who rule against him as lunatics or rogue judges.
Attacking judges undermines public confidence in the rule of law. It makes people less likely to comply with the law. It makes people less likely to report crimes to law enforcement, because they don’t trust the system.
I think it also risks that people will engage in vigilante violence and take law into their own hands.
If we see the administration, or others at high levels, not following the rules, how do we enforce them? The social contract is that even when we disagree with a court ruling, we obey.
We may have the power to change it, by petitioning Congress or appealing, but we can’t just blatantly disregard a legal decision that we don’t like.
—————
3. How does the Supreme Court’s use of the so-called shadow docket fit into the bigger picture?
The increasing use of the emergency docket, or shadow docket, has a detrimental effect on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Historically, the emergency docket has been used to provide emergency relief to prevent a bad thing from happening before the court could get to it. But what we’re seeing more and more is the granting of these emergency petitions—especially when they’re brought by the administration—and sometimes the court making decisions without a full briefing.
What we’re seeing now are these per curiam opinions, which are considered temporary and might be just a paragraph, but which sometimes change established law. If we’re going to change the law, let’s brief it, let’s read about it, let’s see an oral argument, and let’s see a full opinion that says we’re overturning decades of precedent.
—————
4. One chapter in your book focuses on creating “guardrails” for democracy, such as reforming ethics rules and election laws. Is that the most important piece of how we move forward?
We can help ourselves by building some guardrails that will make it more difficult for a president, whoever comes next, to abuse their power. President Trump has shown us where some of those gaps are. There are changes we can make and regulations we can adopt, at the Department of Justice and elsewhere.
Most important, though, is a piece of advice I was given when I served as U.S. attorney: If you want to avoid management problems, hire good people. That is also true when it comes to electing presidents and other leaders.
We need to pay attention to more than our 401(k). We need to pay attention to who is going to safeguard our democracy, who is going to adhere to the rule of law, who is going to respect the free press.
—————
5. Many of your proposed solutions would require congressional action. Do you see that happening?
I think that as we go forward, there is room for compromise. We do see that from time to time. One of the things that I think was encouraging in some ways was the way members of Congress came together over the release of the Epstein files.
Another area where we’ve seen some movement is internet safety for children. Also, the world has become so unaffordable to many Americans; I think there’s room for common ground there.
So often in recent years, the two parties seem to be looking for areas of conflict. Instead of focusing on those issues, where can we find common ground on things that we can achieve? I think voters have the right to demand those kinds of things, and we should demand those things from our elected leaders.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
