Connecticut's Broken Promise: When Equal Justice Favors Special Interests
'Equal justice under law.' These four words are inscribed on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court — a reminder that impartiality is a promise woven into the fabric of our constitutional system. When the building was under construction in 1935, a journalist questioned whether the word 'equal' was necessary. But Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes insisted. In his words, 'plac[ing] a strong emphasis on impartiality' was essential.
He was right. As citizens, taxpayers, and participants in our democratic republic, we are entitled to expect impartiality from those who govern us. That's the promise of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause — and in an era where government often seems to exceed its proper bounds, that expectation has never been more essential. Yet here in Connecticut, too often, that promise is being broken.
Our elected officials are placing a thumb on the scale in deference to favored special interests. In the legislature, they're promoting a bill that would fund striking workers with taxpayer dollars. And nowhere has their one-sidedness been more evident than in recent labor disputes unfolding across our state. Politicians who style themselves as champions of working families seem to forget that employers and their families are also their constituents — and all deserve equal consideration.
The strike at Pratt & Whitney began on May 5. Since then, a parade of elected officials from both parties have joined the picket line to demonstrate support for the strikers. Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz tweeted that she was 'proud to stand with members of the machinist union.' The Connecticut AFL-CIO amplified her message with enthusiasm. U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy; U.S. Reps. Rosa DeLauro, Joe Courtney, Jahana Hayes, and John Larson; and state officials including Attorney General William Tong, State Senate Majority Leader Matt Lesser, Sen. Julie Kushner (herself a former UAW director) and Rep. Ron Delnicki also joined in.
Such one-sided and full-throated pro-union support only increases the likelihood of another work stoppage. Is this really in the best interests of Connecticut's people — and who is representing the broader public interest? Unions and employers can come to terms without government involvement, as shown by the tentative agreement reached at Electric Boat on May 18.
When elected officials take sides in a dispute between private parties — particularly while negotiations are ongoing — they forfeit their ability to serve as honest brokers. They also alienate those of us who are not party to the conflict but depend on sound governance and a functioning economy. We are right to wonder: Who is looking out for us?
The expectation in a free society should be simple: If a person or company is acting lawfully, government should not target or intimidate them. And yet, in Connecticut, official behavior can be tinged with partisanship and even punitive intent.
Take the case of Avelo Airlines. Because the airline cooperated with a federal deportation order issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Attorney General Tong threatened to review Avelo's eligibility for state economic incentives. This wasn't in response to illegal activity. It was a retaliatory threat resulting from partisan disapproval against a lawful contract with the federal government.
In recent years, it has become a bipartisan mantra that 'no one is above the law.' That's true. But no one is beneath the law, either. Employers engaged in good-faith labor negotiations deserve protection from political harassment. So do businesses acting within the scope of the law — even if their conduct offends the sensibilities of the political class.
When politicians pick winners and losers — not in the free market, but in the moral judgment of the state — they corrode the trust our system depends on. They reinforce the suspicion that government no longer serves all its citizens equally, but only those aligned with its preferred ideologies.
Trust in government is not a given. It must be earned — and protected. That starts with leaders who recognize that their job is not to champion favored factions, but to serve all of us, without fear or favor.
If justice is to be equal, it must also be impartial. The people of Connecticut deserve nothing less.
Carol Platt Liebau is the president of Yankee Institute, a Connecticut-based public policy organization.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In emergency appeal, Trump asks Supreme Court to let him gut Education Department
WASHINGTON − The Trump administration on June 6 asked the Supreme Court to let it dismantle the Education Department and fire hundreds of its workers. President Donald Trump is trying to fulfil his campaign promise to end the Education Department and move school policy to the states. In an emergency appeal, the administration said the court should lift a judge's order blocking Trump from carrying out those moves while they're being challenged by Democratic-led states, school districts and teachers' unions. "The Constitution vests the Executive Branch, not district courts, with the authority to make judgments about how many employees are needed to carry out an agency's statutory functions, and whom they should be," Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun said the White House's decision to fire more than 1,300 workers in March has prevented the federal government from effectively implementing legally required programs and services. Such changes can't be made without the approval of Congress, which created the department in 1979, Joun ruled. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed that decision. The court said the administration provided no evidence to counter Joun's "record-based findings about the disabling impact" of the mass firings and the transfer of some functions to other agencies. "What is at stake in this case, the District Court found, was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department," Judge David Barron wrote for the panel of three circuit judges. An executive order Trump signed in March directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "facilitate the closure of the Department of Education." Republicans have long accused the federal government of holding too much power over local and state education policy, even though the federal government has no control over school curriculum. McMahon announced roughly half the agency's workforce would be eliminated through a combination of mass layoffs and voluntary buyouts. That would have reduced the staff from 4,133 workers when Trump began his second term in January to 2,183 workers. The administration also wants the Small Business Administration to take over student loans and move special education services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More: Trump can't erase the Education Department with an executive order. Here's why. Joun's order blocked the administration from transferring those functions and required the department to reinstate fired workers. The appeals court said Trump doesn't have to have as many Education Department employees as the previous administration but can't cut so many that the agency can't function as Congress intended. The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the harms to the government from having to rehire the workers as the litigation continues are greater than any harms the challengers said they'll suffer from diminished department services. More: What will happen at my school if Trump closes the Department of Education? The Education Department is legally required to ensure that students and teachers with disabilities are treated fairly and that low-income schools get the resources they need to keep pace with more affluent ones. The agency also issues regulations for colleges to hold them accountable for preparing graduates for well-paying jobs. And it functions like a giant bank, doling out billions of dollars to help people pay for college. Even if the Education Department were reorganized, which would take an act of Congress, its obligations under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 would have to continue elsewhere. The law passed during the Johnson administration requires the government to administer student loan programs, issue grants and ensure that schools receiving federal money don't discriminate against students. Contributing: Zachary Schermele This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump asks Supreme Court to let him gut Education Department


UPI
32 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow further Education Department dismantling
1 of 4 | Federal officials on Friday filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of President Donald Trumnp, asking it to remove a lower court judge's ruling currently prohibiting further dismantling of the Department of Education. Photo by Eric Lee/UPI | License Photo June 6 (UPI) -- Federal officials on Friday filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to remove a lower court judge's ruling currently prohibiting further dismantling of the Department of Education. President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon are listed as the applicants on court documents. The Trump administration is attempting to remove a temporary order instituted last month by U.S. District Court Judge Myong Joun in Massachusetts that forces the federal government to re-hire almost 1,400 fired employees and prohibits further layoffs. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also asked the Supreme Court to stay Joun's order while it considers the application, which would allow the administration to move forward with its plans to further dismantle the department. Joun last month ruled the department, which was created in 1979, "must be able to carry out its functions and its obligations under the [Department of Education Organization Act] and other relevant statutes as mandated by Congress." A spokesperson for the Department of Education said at the time the federal government would immediately challenge the order "on an emergency basis." "The Constitution vests the Executive Branch, not district courts, with the authority to make judgments about how many employees are needed to carry out an agency's statutory functions, and whom they should be," Sauer, who filed the application on behalf of Trump and McMahon, wrote. "For the second time in three months, the same district court has thwarted the Executive Branch's authority to manage the Department of Education despite lacking jurisdiction to second-guess the Executive's internal management decisions. This Court curtailed that overreach when the district court attempted to prevent the Department from terminating discretionary grants." In mid-March, McMahon confirmed nearly half of her department's staff would be placed on leave as part of Trump's plan to eliminate the agency, part of a larger push to cut federal spending.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump asks Supreme Court to green light Education Department firings
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to give the go-ahead to carry out a plan to fire almost 40 percent of the Education Department's workforce. In an emergency appeal filed Friday morning, Solicitor General John Sauer asked the high court to lift a preliminary injunction a federal judge in Boston issued last month after determining that such sweeping staffing cuts would cripple the agency's ability to carry out functions assigned to it by Congress. While Trump has vowed to eliminate the Education Department, Sauer insisted that the proposed, wide-ranging reductions in force target 'inefficiency' and are not an attempt to kneecap the agency as the president advocates for its demise. Sauer said Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's order was part of a pattern of federal judges overstepping their proper role and second-guessing executive branch decisions. The Constitution 'does not empower district courts to presume that all 1,400 employees must be reinstated to their previous jobs and functions based on anecdotal speculation about impairment of some of the Department's services,' Sauer wrote, adding: 'The Department remains committed to implementing its statutorily mandated functions.' Joun issued the injunction May 22 in connection with lawsuits brought by Democratic-led states, the Somerville, Massachusetts, public school system and several labor unions. Noting that Trump has repeatedly vowed to shutter the Education Department 'immediately,' the Biden appointee concluded that the layoffs amounted to 'an attempt … to shut down the Department without Congressional approval.' The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Joun's order, although the administration's appeal remains pending. In April, the Supreme Court stepped in at the administration's request to block an order Joun issued in a separate lawsuit involving the Education Department. That directive required the agency to keep funding certain teaching-related grants that Trump appointees had sought to terminate. Four of the high court's nine justices dissented from the stay blocking Joun's order in that case. In an emergency appeal already pending at the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is trying to lift a block a federal judge in San Francisco issued on tens of thousands of layoffs at all major federal agencies except for the Education Department.