Fresno Criminal Lawyer
Fresno Criminal Lawyer – Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Horowitz
They’re not burning books — not yet. But they are burning bridges: between truth and propaganda, between equity and erasure, between a multiracial democracy and something that looks an awful lot like the country the Confederacy dreamed of.
What we’re seeing is the New Confederacy of Silence.
Crimmigration Under Fire
Let’s start with the obvious: this is not about “meritless claims.”
When Trump goes after immigration lawyers, he’s not trying to protect the integrity of the system. He’s trying to silence the people who fight for the rights of immigrants — many of them brown, many of them poor, all of them disfavored under this administration’s agenda.
The term “crimmigration” was coined to describe the collision between immigration law and the criminal legal system.
At its most basic, “crimmigration” law describes the convergence of two distinct bodies of law: criminal law and procedure with immigration law and procedure. For most of the nation’s history, these operated almost entirely free of the other. Criminal law and procedure was thought to be the province of prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and the state and federal judges who oversee criminal prosecutions every day. Immigration law, in contrast, was confined to immigration courts housed within the executive branch of the federal government and staffed by immigration attorneys, immigration judges, and prosecutors employed for many years by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and now the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Department of Justice.
— César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, Crimmigration Law, 1 (2d ed. 2021)
But lately, it’s starting to feel more like a controlled demolition.
Just look at the memo Trump sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi. He wants the Department of Justice to pursue sanctions —professional punishment — for lawyers whose only “crime” is filing lawsuits that challenge government overreach. Think about that. The government gets sued, doesn’t like it, and its response is to punish the lawyers. That’s not just dangerous. That’s the start of fascism. (First, we kill all the lawyers.)
But let me be even clearer: this isn’t about legal ethics. It’s political retaliation. Lawyers aren’t the ones “undermining confidence in the system.” The system is doing a pretty good job of that all by itself — when it locks up asylum seekers without due process, separates families, or uses ICE raids like political theater. The lawyers are just trying to hold the line.
This goes beyond immigration law. The playbook is expanding. You speak out, you get targeted. You sue the government, you get smeared. You win in court, and suddenly your license is on the table. I’ve been a criminal defense lawyer long enough to know that when the government starts going after defense counsel for doing their jobs, we’re in dangerous territory.
And make no mistake: this is a job. But it’s also a responsibility. When they come for people with no power, someone has to stand between them and the state. And if that someone is me, I won’t be shamed or silenced. Not by a memo, a smear campaign, or a president with a vendetta.
The DEI Smokescreen
Let’s get something straight: the backlash against DEI — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — isn’t organic. It’s not some spontaneous groundswell of concerned citizens waking up and realizing that fairness has gone “too far.” It’s top-down. It’s coordinated. And it’s racialized to its core.
As Derrick Bell wrote in Faces at the Bottom of the Well, racism isn’t just about ignorance or hatred — it’s a tool of control. Bell argued that entrenched racial hierarchies are often useful to the wealthy and powerful because they keep marginalized groups — and working-class white people — fighting each other instead of recognizing their shared struggle against economic exploitation. When you understand that, the sudden, well-funded backlash against DEI makes a lot more sense. It’s not just about racial animus; it’s about protecting the status quo by stoking grievance and fear. If we’re busy fighting over who “deserves” fairness, we’re not paying attention to who’s hoarding all the power.
The scientific and academic communities didn’t suddenly forget why DEI matters. Quite the opposite — they’ve been leading the way in trying to correct for generations of exclusion, underrepresentation, and outright discrimination. The idea that DEI initiatives are some kind of existential threat to merit, objectivity, or “American values” is a political fiction. It’s not about protecting standards; it’s about preserving hierarchies.
And now, under Trump’s second term, that fiction is being written into policy. Scientific journals are receiving threatening letters from federal prosecutors. Universities are walking back programs designed to support underrepresented students. Even the New England Journal of Medicine is under fire — not for publishing bad science, but for publishing the wrong kind of values. The government has decided that diversity is dangerous, equity is suspicious, and inclusion is un-American.
Let’s not kid ourselves about what’s really going on here.
“DEI” has become the new stand-in for every slur and stereotype the far-right can’t say out loud anymore. It’s a more palatable, sanitized way to attack Black and brown people, immigrants, LGBTQ+ communities, and anyone else who doesn’t fit neatly into the 1950s sitcom fantasy that these folks are so desperate to resurrect. When they say they’re fighting DEI, what they’re really fighting is us. And when they claim it’s about fairness or balance or colorblindness, what they mean is they want the old system back — where whiteness meant default, and everyone else had to fight for scraps.
The idea that DEI is “divisive” is the real smokescreen. What’s actually divisive is a government using its power to punish inclusion. What’s destructive is a movement that believes civil rights went too far, and is now working overtime to reverse them.
This isn’t policy debate. It’s race politics in a new outfit. And the stitching is coming undone.
Free Speech, But Only for the Right
The right-wing’s invocation of “free speech” has become a selective shield — protecting their own narratives while silencing dissenting voices. Adam Serwer aptly describes this as the “conservative right to post,” highlighting the glaring hypocrisy: free speech is championed only when it aligns with their agenda.
This selective defense is evident in President Trump’s recent executive order to defund NPR and PBS, accusing them of ideological bias. Such actions threaten the foundational principle of press freedom and raise concerns about authoritarian overreach.
The attack extends beyond media to academic and scientific communities. Efforts to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are not mere policy disagreements but are rooted in a desire to suppress discussions on systemic inequality. These initiatives aim to address historical disparities and promote inclusivity, yet they are being targeted under the guise of combating “wokeness.”
It has also frozen every single research grant at the US National Science Foundation, one of the largest funders of basic research in the world, in order to review the grants’ language for terms related to DEI. Some of the “woke” or “partisan” stuff that’s been kneecapped by the sweeping cuts include cancer and Alzheimer’s research. If the draconian measures were intended to be an out-and-out assault on the scientific community, it’s working: with the money drying up, some of the nation’s top scientists are starting to consider leaving the country.
— Frank Landymore, “The Government Is Now Threatening Academic Journals” (April 20, 2025)
This orchestrated campaign seeks to reshape the cultural and educational landscape, reminiscent of eras where dissent was stifled, and conformity was enforced. By controlling narratives and limiting platforms for alternative perspectives, there’s a concerted effort to redefine national values and history. But it will have the side effect of turning the United States into a desert wasteland of scientific progress.
In reality, though, the proclaimed defense of free speech by the right serves as a facade, masking a deeper intent to consolidate power and suppress opposition. True commitment to free expression requires safeguarding diverse voices, especially those challenging the status quo.
What’s Really at Stake
This isn’t just about policy — it’s about power: who holds it, who wields it, and who gets silenced by it. It’s about who defines what it means to be American, and who gets erased from that definition.
If Trump and his allies succeed, they won’t just rewrite the laws — they’ll rewrite the narrative. They’ll recast history to serve their agenda, marginalize communities under the guise of “restoring order,” and weaponize institutions to suppress dissent. This isn’t preservation; it’s regression — a deliberate attempt to drag us back to a time when voices like mine, and those I represent, were systematically excluded.
Sherrilyn Ifill put it plainly: “We will cease to be a democracy” if Trump returns to power.
And so it has happened and is happening.
Consider the recent shifts: The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has been redirected to focus on voter fraud, sidelining its core mission of protecting voting rights. DEI initiatives are being dismantled across federal agencies, with employees purged for merely participating in diversity programs. Even cultural institutions like the National Museum of African American History and Culture are under attack, with executive orders aiming to marginalize Black history.
This is a calculated strategy to consolidate power by erasing the progress we’ve made toward inclusivity and equity. It’s not about conserving American values; it’s about redefining them to fit a narrow, exclusionary vision.
We must recognize this for what it is: an authoritarian playbook designed to suppress opposition and entrench a singular narrative. Our response must be unwavering. We must defend the principles of justice, equity, and inclusion — not just in our rhetoric, but in our actions.
Free Speech vs. the New Confederacy of Silence
The Confederacy lost the Civil War. But its ideology — white supremacy, authoritarianism, and the suppression of dissent — has never fully disappeared.
As I said in 2020,
[A]s evidenced by the short-lived and ineffective Reconstruction, then the start of the “Redemption” in 1877, and the rise of Jim Crow, the reality is that the exploitation of blacks, and the killing of both blacks and whites who opposed the “reconstructed” Confederacy did not stop.
— Rick Horowitz, The Supreme Reconstruction & Redemption of Civil Rights, 2020 Forum (Cal. Att’ys for Crim. Just.) 52, 53
Today, these ideas are re-emerging under new guises: “free speech,” “anti-DEI,” and “protecting America.” This resurgence isn’t a coincidence; it’s a calculated effort to roll back decades of civil rights progress.
In recent months, the Trump administration has aggressively targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, dismantling programs designed to support marginalized communities. Executive orders have revoked equal employment protections, censored educational institutions, and slashed funding for minority-owned businesses and cultural institutions. Even the Department of Defense has purged content celebrating the achievements of Black, Indigenous, and female veterans, effectively erasing their contributions from public memory.
These actions are often justified under the banner of “free speech” or combating “wokeness.” However, they represent a deliberate campaign to suppress honest historical discourse and institutionalize exclusionary policies. By attacking DEI efforts, the administration undermines not only racial justice but also violates fundamental rights to free speech and association.
As a criminal defense lawyer, I see firsthand how these policies impact the pursuit of justice. They embolden discriminatory practices and silence voices that challenge systemic inequities. As a citizen, I recognize the danger in allowing such ideologies to go unchallenged. And as someone who still believes in liberty and justice for all, I refuse to stay silent.
The Confederacy may have been defeated on the battlefield, but its legacy persists in these modern assaults on equality and truth. It’s incumbent upon all of us to confront this resurgence, to defend the principles of inclusion and justice, and to ensure that the arc of history continues to bend toward a more equitable future.
The post The New Confederacy of Silence appeared first on Fresno Criminal Lawyer. It was written by Rick.