Justice ReDesigned Podcast

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske moves the DEI conversation beyond its most familiar—and most flawed—argument: that diversity increases profits.For years, proponents relied on studies showing correlations between diverse leadership and financial performance. Critics responded with a valid critique: correlation is not causation.But as Teske explains, that debate misses the point entirely.The real question isn’t whether diversity magically produces profit.It’s whether poorly designed systems are quietly wasting talent.This episode reframes DEI not as a moral slogan or political talking point, but as institutional architecture—the systems organizations use to identify, retain, and elevate talent. When those systems fail, companies don’t just lose diversity.They lose performance.This episode explores:* Why the correlation vs. causation debate is the wrong fight* The critical difference between diversity as an outcome and inclusion as a system* How bias, narrow pipelines, and opaque promotion processes create costly “talent leakage”* Why inclusion is best understood as engineering, not ideology* And how organizations that reduce waste outperform those that ignore itTeske also tackles a common misconception: that DEI is simply a modern version of quotas or affirmative action. Instead, he explains how properly designed inclusion systems operate like any other performance system—measured, refined, and accountable.At its core, this episode delivers a simple but powerful insight:Inclusion doesn’t work because it is politically correct.It works because inefficiency is expensive.And when organizations stop wasting talent, something predictable happens:Performance improves.Because the real issue was never whether diversity causes profit.The real issue is whether your system is designed to waste less human potential.Steve Teske is a retired judge who served in the juvenile and superior courts, presiding over delinquency, child abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights, and adult civil and criminal matters. He has testified before Congress and numerous state legislatures on policy development related to racial disparities. He has published several articles in scholarly and professional journals.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

We’re taking a short pause from the DEI series for a conversation that reflects the larger purpose of Justice ReDesigned: exploring how systems can be rebuilt to serve people better.In this episode, I interview Judge Geronda Carter of Georgia’s Clayton Judicial Circuit, a jurist whose work demonstrates what meaningful reform looks like when it moves from theory into practice.Too often, justice reform is discussed only in terms of what is broken. But real progress also requires us to study what is working—and why.Judge Carter shares how she has used judicial leadership and innovation to remove barriers that too often prevent people from fully participating in the legal process. From virtual court appearances that reduce transportation problems, lost wages, and scheduling conflicts, to a Parental Accountability Court that helps families through support, structure, and responsibility, her work offers a blueprint for smarter and more humane justice systems.In this episode, we discuss:* How technology can expand access to justice without sacrificing fairness* Why many failures to appear are rooted in barriers, not irresponsibility* How child support enforcement can focus on solutions instead of automatic punishment* The importance of helping parents become fully engaged in their children’s lives* What judicial leadership looks like when it is grounded in service, common sense, and outcomesThis is not innovation for innovation’s sake. It is redesign with purpose.It is justice that meets people where they are.It is justice that asks what works.And it is justice worth building.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske steps back from the legal and economic debates over DEI to examine the word driving much of the conflict: woke.Once a term meaning awareness of injustice, “woke” has evolved into a political weapon—used to dismiss conversations about race, history, and inequality. But Teske argues that the real story is not wokeness itself, but the selective outrage surrounding it.This episode explores:* How the meaning of “woke” has shifted from awareness to accusation* Where progressive activism has sometimes overreached—and why that matters* The growing irony of “anti-woke” efforts that engage in their own forms of cultural intervention* The difference between remembering history and honoring it* And why neutrality is never the absence of values, but a decision about what to preserve and what to ignoreAt its core, this conversation challenges a simple assumption: that awareness is the problem.Because when cultural intervention is condemned on one side and embraced on the other, the issue is no longer wokeness.It is inconsistency. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Please consider subscribing to Justice ReDesigned. It is free when choosing the no-pay option. All articles and podcasts will be delivered directly to your email. Thank you!Host’s NoteThis podcast is part of an ongoing Justice ReDesigned series examining the legal, economic, and institutional dimensions of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Each installment addresses a different layer of the debate — from merit and neutrality to profitability and governance — with the aim of separating rhetoric from reality.In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske takes on one of the most powerful—and misunderstood—ideas in American public life: meritocracy.For decades, the phrase “hiring based on merit” has been used as a rhetorical counterweight to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But what if the real question isn’t whether merit matters, but whether our systems actually recognize merit in the first place?Teske explores the hidden assumptions behind the meritocracy debate and explains why the conversation often collapses into a false choice between competence and inclusion. Drawing on historical examples, legal frameworks, and economic research, he argues that true meritocracy requires something many institutions still resist: structured systems designed to identify talent across all backgrounds.This episode examines:• Why “meritocracy” in practice has often operated through informal networks rather than objective standards• How structured hiring and evaluation systems strengthen merit rather than undermine it• The historical lesson of the Tuskegee Airmen and what it reveals about hidden talent• Why the real threat to merit is not inclusion—but unexamined assumptions about who qualifies as “meritorious”The conversation ultimately reframes the debate: the goal is not to abandon merit, but to build systems capable of recognizing it wherever it exists.Because the real myth isn’t merit itself.It’s the belief that our institutions have always measured it fairly. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Please consider subscribing to Justice ReDesigned. It is free when choosing the no-pay option. All articles and podcasts will be delivered directly to your email. Thank you!In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske moves beyond rhetoric and into architecture.As political debates swirl around “DEI,” this episode reframes the conversation: inclusion is not about preference or quotas — it is about institutional design. When properly implemented, inclusion is a structured system built on transparent criteria, standardized evaluation, and measurable pathways to advancement.Teske examines:* What Title VII actually prohibits — and what it allows* The difference between identity-based favoritism and bias-resistant systems* Why inclusion is what organizations do, while diversity is what they get* How structured hiring and evaluation protect merit rather than distort it* And why corporations focused on long-term performance quietly maintain inclusion strategies despite political pressureIf merit truly matters, then the systems used to identify talent must be built to see it broadly, not narrowly. Inclusion is not a political slogan — it is governance architecture.Steven Teske is a retired judge with 22 years’ experience on the juvenile and superior court bench. He served ten years as the chief judge. Before his service as a jurist, he was a trial attorney and partner in the Atlanta law firm of Boswell & Teske LLP. Teske also served as special assistant attorney general representing state employees and prosecuting child abuse and neglect cases.During his tenure on the bench, Teske testified before Congress on four (4) occasions and numerous state legislatures. He has published several articles on juvenile justice and child welfare issues. He was appointed by three governors to several state boards and commissions including the Commission on Criminal Justice Reform, Council on Child Welfare Reform, Family Violence Commission, Governor’s Office of Children and Families, Children & Youth Coordinating Council, Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council, and the Judicial Advisory Council. Teske served two terms on the Federal Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice.He is a past president of the Georgia Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Clayton County Bar Association, and National Chair of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice. He is a Henry Toll Fellow with the Council of State Governments. He has a Masters in political science and a Juris Doctor. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske pulls back the curtain on the modern neutrality movement — and what it looks like when anti-DEI rhetoric runs out of legal arguments and starts policing fonts, museums, and gift shops.From Confederate school names to scrubbing historical exhibits, Teske explores a simple but uncomfortable truth:Neutrality is never passive. It is always a choice about what to honor, what to silence, and whose discomfort matters.If removing monuments to slavery is called “woke,” what do we call censoring exhibits about slavery?This episode examines:* The difference between history and honor* Why neutrality is not the absence of values* How “colorblindness” can become context blindness* And why cultural editing disguised as restraint is still activismWhen the masks slip, neutrality looks less like principle — and more like performance. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Judge Steven C. Teske dismantles one of the most seductive ideas in modern political discourse: neutrality.Colorblind policies are often marketed as fair and balanced. Teske argues they are neither.Drawing on Supreme Court precedent and institutional history, he explains why neutrality is not the absence of values — it is a choice about what to see, what to ignore, and who bears the cost of that blindness.This episode examines:* Why “neutral in form” policies can perpetuate inequality in practice* How civil rights law has never required blindness to systemic harm* The economic research showing that effective DEI strategies increase innovation and profitability* Why abandoning inclusion in the name of neutrality may impose a long-term “Homogeneity Tax” on institutionsNeutrality may feel safe.But safety is not the same as justice — and it is not the same as competitiveness.Sometimes what we call neutrality is simply regression dressed up as restraint.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In Defense of DEI is not a plea for politeness. It is a rebuttal to distortion.In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Judge Steven C. Teske dismantles the most common attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — that it lowers standards, divides institutions, or violates the law. Separating bad implementation from bad faith, he makes the case that properly designed DEI is not racial preference but institutional reform.With legal clarity and unapologetic candor, this episode examines:* The myth of “pure merit”* Why corporations continue DEI despite political pressure* What the Supreme Court actually did — and did not — say* Why inclusion, when done correctly, is not ideology but strategy* The economic research linking diversity to innovation and profitabilityBlending law, economics, and sharp commentary, Teske argues that abandoning DEI does not restore fairness — it restores comfort for those who never felt excluded.You don’t have to like DEI.But if you care about law, markets, or institutional legitimacy — you have to understand it.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In Part II, the focus shifts from the lie of neutrality to the damage it causes.If forgetting history were harmless, the evidence would be neutral. It isn’t.This episode traces how “merit without memory” produces real-world consequences—declining African American enrollment at elite institutions, the laundering of bias through discretion, and the broader economic and democratic costs of exclusion. Teske draws a direct line between anti-DEI rhetoric, dishonest narratives about immigration and crime, and a political strategy built on amnesia.Merit, he argues, has become performance art: polished résumés mistaken for excellence, access mistaken for ability, and inheritance rebranded as achievement.Part II also previews the broader DEI series—The Myth of Neutrality, The Reverse Discrimination Trap, From SFFA to the Classroom, and The Economic Cost of Exclusion—and makes clear what’s at stake: not whether the law has changed, but whether institutions will tell the truth about what that change is doing.This episode is not about nostalgia or defiance.It is about refusing to pretend that forgetting is the same thing as fairness.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

What happens when institutions claim to measure “merit” while pretending history never happened?In Part I of Merit Without Memory, Steven Teske dismantles the comforting fiction that neutrality is the same as fairness. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, many universities and institutions rushed to adopt so-called “race-neutral” approaches—especially class-based metrics—while quietly erasing the historical realities that shaped opportunity in the first place.This episode argues that forgetting is not passive. It is strategic.Teske explains why the law did not require institutional amnesia, how class-based approaches fail to address racial discrimination that operates independently of poverty, and why discretion—when stripped of historical context—becomes the perfect hiding place for bias.This is not an abstract debate about admissions formulas. It is a warning about what happens when merit is severed from memory—and neutrality becomes camouflage.Part I sets the trap. Part II exposes the costJustice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In this four-part podcast series, Justice ReDesigned sits down with nationally acclaimed diversity trainer and justice reform advocate Pastor Edward L. Palmer Sr.—a powerful voice in the fight against racial and ethnic disparities in America’s juvenile justice and child welfare systems.We explore the backlash against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), the legal and personal consequences of erasing racial equity from public discourse, and the deeper political strategies at play. With honesty and clarity, Pastor Palmer helps us understand not just what's at stake—but what we must do to preserve justice in a pluralistic America.Our final episode begins with a critical conversation on how race and poverty are manipulated in American politics. Drawing on themes explored in works like Hillbilly Elegy, Pastor Palmer reflects on why some poor white communities resist racial equity—even when equity would benefit them too.We then close the series with a segment titled “Reclaiming the Language – Moving Forward.” Pastor Palmer offers a direct message to the current administration—and words of guidance for those who still believe in the fight for justice.This episode is both a warning and a call to action: if we continue turning civil rights on their head, what future are we really building—especially in a nation where the white majority is shrinking and pluralism is rising?Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In this four-part podcast series, Justice ReDesigned sits down with nationally acclaimed diversity trainer and justice reform advocate Pastor Edward L. Palmer Sr.—a powerful voice in the fight against racial and ethnic disparities in America’s juvenile justice and child welfare systems.We explore the backlash against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), the legal and personal consequences of erasing racial equity from public discourse, and the deeper political strategies at play. With honesty and clarity, Pastor Palmer helps us understand not just what's at stake—but what we must do to preserve justice in a pluralistic America.In Episode 3, we look at the human cost of the anti-DEI backlash. Once widely sought out for his nationally recognized work, Pastor Palmer now faces institutional silence.We explore the emotional and professional toll of being sidelined—not for what you’ve done wrong, but for standing on the right side of justice. Is the silence driven by fear? Politics? Or something more deeply rooted? This episode reveals what it means to be erased—not just from invitations, but from influence.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In this second installment of “A Conversation with Pastor Edward Palmer on Implicit Bias, DEI Backlash, and the Struggle for True Equity,” we examine the disturbing trend sweeping across public institutions: the suppression of DEI language and initiatives under the guise of neutrality.Pastor Edward Palmer—nationally recognized diversity trainer, veteran, and juvenile justice reformer—joins us to unpack what happens when the tools of equity are not just defunded, but deliberately redefined as discriminatory.In this episode, we ask:* Why have invitations for DEI training and technical assistance slowed dramatically under the new administration?* How do we respond to the administration’s claim that acknowledging race in public policy is itself “racist”?* What happens when systems are forbidden from using terms like “equity,” “inclusion,” or “disparities”?* And most importantly: How do we address racism if we’re no longer allowed to say the word “race”?This conversation exposes how civil rights frameworks are being flipped upside down—how the very language designed to promote justice is being cast as dangerous.It’s not just semantics—it’s systemic erasure.Tune in to hear Pastor Palmer explain the chilling effect this shift is having on the frontlines of justice reform—and why silencing the vocabulary of equity is silencing the fight for equity itself.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In this four-part podcast series, Justice ReDesigned sits down with nationally acclaimed diversity trainer and justice reform advocate Pastor Edward L. Palmer Sr.—a powerful voice in the fight against racial and ethnic disparities in America’s juvenile justice and child welfare systems.With decades of experience delivering implicit bias training across the country—from courtrooms to classrooms, city councils to Congress—Pastor Palmer now finds himself on the frontlines of a new struggle: the backlash against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).As anti-DEI sentiment grows under the current presidential administration, Palmer has witnessed his once-frequent invitations for training and technical assistance dry up—not because the work is done, but because the political climate has changed.In this series, we explore:* The personal and systemic impact of silencing DEI efforts* The legal and moral contradictions of labeling racial equity as “racist”* The political manipulation of race and poverty to divide communities* And the hard question: What happens when the white majority is no longer the majority—and civil rights have already been dismantled?Whether you’re an advocate, educator, policymaker, or citizen who believes justice should be more than a slogan, this series will challenge, inform, and empower you.Episode 1: “The Life Work of Pastor Palmer”In Episode 1, we introduce Pastor Edward Palmer’s extraordinary life and mission—from serving five terms as a city councilman and co-leading a growing ministry, to being recognized with national honors like the Thurgood Marshall Social Justice Impact Award and the MLK Leadership Award.We learn about his deeply personal journey into the work of implicit bias and his passion for addressing racial disparities in systems that impact youth and families.As we lay the foundation for this four-part conversation, we also begin to trace the subtle shift happening across the country—a growing institutional silence toward the very work that once defined progress.Join us as we begin an honest conversation about justice redefined, with a man whose voice continues to echo across systems—even when they try to turn down the volume.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, I explore a question that sits at the center of today’s higher-education debates—and is too often reduced to partisan slogans: Is academic freedom a liberal value, a conservative value, or something else entirely?I argue that academic freedom is structural, not ideological—much like due process or an independent judiciary. It exists not to protect favored ideas, but to protect the process by which ideas are tested, challenged, and debated without fear of government or institutional retaliation.This episode engages the experience of conservative professor Richard Vatz, who has written about feeling marginalized within a predominantly liberal academic culture, and it also considers the thoughtful rebuttal offered by Jennifer Ballengee, chair of the faculty senate. Rather than choosing sides, the conversation asks a harder question: How do we protect academic freedom for everyone—especially when cultural imbalance, institutional responsibility, and political pressure collide?The podcast also reflects on the dangers of government intrusion into curricular content, the difference between cultural disagreement and constitutional violation, and why weakening academic freedom in the name of ideological “correction” ultimately harms both the left and the right.This episode is a companion to the essay of the same title published on my Substack, where you’ll find links to the original articles discussed here as well as research studies that inform several of the conclusions explored in the conversation.If we care about justice in education, we must defend academic freedom not as a partisan tool, but as the architecture that makes genuine inquiry—and democratic pluralism—possible.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Who designs a federal policy that pressures America’s leading universities to reshape speech, hiring, and institutional culture — without ever mentioning the Constitution?In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, I take a closer look at May Mailman, the former deputy assistant to the president and senior policy strategist who played a central role in shaping the Trump administration’s approach to higher education, including the so-called “Compact for Academic Excellence.”Mailman is not a pundit on the sidelines. She was a policy architect — negotiating directly with universities, helping craft settlement agreements, and applying federal leverage behind closed doors. Yet in her extensive public defense of the administration’s strategy, one thing is conspicuously absent: any acknowledgment of the First Amendment limits on government power.This episode explores that silence.We examine how cultural frustration with universities became a justification for federal coercion, why conditioning funding on ideological compliance violates long-settled constitutional doctrine, and how academic freedom — often misunderstood as partisan — is in fact a structural protection designed to shield all viewpoints from government control.If you want to understand the legal blind spot at the heart of the administration’s university strategy — and why so many institutions rejected it outright — this episode provides the missing context.Listen now and decide for yourself what happens when policy is built without the Constitution in mind.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

What began as a five-part series on the Trump administration’s proposed university “Compact” has taken an unexpected turn. In the days since I recorded the initial episodes, the story has evolved — fast. Newly published reporting in The New York Times has revealed the behind-the-scenes influence of billionaire financiers, the true origins of the Compact, and the extraordinary pressure placed on America’s top universities. Even more importantly, we now have the universities’ responses — and their almost unanimous rejection of the proposal.This epilogue brings those new developments into focus.In “The Compact for Obedience — New Developments, New Clarity,” I examine:* How billionaires like Marc Rowan helped shape and promote a federal policy aimed at ideological control rather than academic excellence* Why seven of the nine universities targeted by the administration rejected the Compact outright* How the University of Arizona responded with one of the most principled, thoughtful, and constitutionally grounded letters in higher education — a model of academic integrity* And why Marc Rowan’s continued insistence that “academic freedom is not absolute” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s distinction between protected academic speech and regulable commercial or harmful speechThis epilogue ties together the entire series — with the added clarity that comes only when the story deepens. If the original episodes revealed the Compact’s flaws, this chapter reveals its consequences and the national pushback it has ignited.If you want to understand the full landscape of this unfolding battle — the power, the pressure, the constitutional stakes — this epilogue is essential.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

After four episodes tracing the origins, dangers, and constitutional failures of the Trump administration’s proposed university “Compact,” we arrive at the heart of the matter — the question beneath every policy debate, every billionaire intervention, and every attempt to reshape American higher education:What are we actually choosing to protect?Episode 5 of The Compact for Obedience is the closing monologue — a sweeping, candid reflection on academic freedom, constitutional courage, and the fragile line between a free society and an obedient one. This is where the humor gives way to clarity, and the constitutional doctrine gives way to principle.In this final chapter, I explore:* Why the First Amendment’s promise — “Congress shall make NO law…” — isn’t just legal text; it’s a covenant* How freedoms disappear not with gunfire, but with memos, “compacts,” and polite requests for compliance* Why academic freedom is the canary in the coal mine for every other freedom we hold* And what this moment reveals about the character of our democracy — and the responsibilities we bear to defend itThis monologue is not just the end of a series; it is a reminder that free inquiry is the beating heart of American higher education, and that the true danger is not disagreement on our campuses — but the coercion that seeks to silence it.If you watch only one episode of this series, let it be this one.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

After exposing the flaws, coercion, and constitutional violations embedded in the Trump administration’s proposed university “Compact,” the next question is unavoidable:What would real reform look like — reform that strengthens higher education without silencing it?Episode 4 of The Compact for Obedience shifts from critique to construction.Here, we explore the blueprint for a genuine, principled, and constitutional academic compact — one built on excellence, accountability, and freedom.This episode lays out what the federal government can do, what it should do, and, most importantly, what it must never do.Inside this episode, we discuss:* Why true academic excellence requires freedom, not federal supervision* What legitimate reforms (cost control, transparency, governance modernization) actually look like* How universities can address rising tuition and administrative bloat without political interference* Why viewpoint neutrality must apply to government, not universities* And what a constitutional partnership between higher education and Washington would look like in practiceEpisode 4 is the “pivot point” of the series — the place where we move from dismantling a dangerous proposal to outlining the path forward.If you want to see how higher education can be strengthened without sacrificing autonomy, this episode is the heart of the answer.Subscribe for fee and get all my essays and podcasts delivered straight to your email. No secret handshake, no handing over money—-just sit back, wait, and it comes to you. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

After exposing the flaws, coercion, and constitutional violations embedded in the Trump administration’s proposed university “Compact,” the next question is unavoidable:What would real reform look like — reform that strengthens higher education without silencing it?Episode 4 of The Compact for Obedience shifts from critique to construction.Here, we explore the blueprint for a genuine, principled, and constitutional academic compact — one built on excellence, accountability, and freedom.This episode lays out what the federal government can do, what it should do, and, most importantly, what it must never do.Inside this episode, we discuss:* Why true academic excellence requires freedom, not federal supervision* What legitimate reforms (cost control, transparency, governance modernization) actually look like* How universities can address rising tuition and administrative bloat without political interference* Why viewpoint neutrality must apply to government, not universities* And what a constitutional partnership between higher education and Washington would look like in practiceEpisode 4 is the “pivot point” of the series — the place where we move from dismantling a dangerous proposal to outlining the path forward.If you want to see how higher education can be strengthened without sacrificing autonomy, this episode is the heart of the answer.Please subscribe and receive all podcasts and essays directly to your email. It is free.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Episode Description The Trump administration’s university “Compact” claims it’s all about fixing real problems in higher education: rising tuition, administrative bloat, student debt, and a system that feels increasingly out of reach for ordinary families.And here’s the twist:Those problems are real.But the “solutions” inside the Compact have nothing to do with fixing them.In Episode 3 of The Compact for Obedience, I unpack the most deceptive part of this entire proposal — the economic Trojan horse. This is the strategy: Use legitimate frustration about cost and governance to smuggle in something far more dangerous…federal control over university speech, institutional neutrality, and academic autonomy.Inside this episode, we explore:* How billionaires like Marc Rowan use real economic concerns to mask unconstitutional aims* Why the Compact’s “common-sense reforms” are unrelated to the problems they claim to solve* How higher-ed economics became the delivery system for viewpoint-based government oversight* And why the greatest threat to universities isn’t tuition — its coercion dressed up like accountabilityThis segment is where the mask comes off.If you want to understand how political power and billionaire influence are leveraging public anger to regulate academic expression, Episode 3 lays it bare.Watch Episode 3 here and subscribe for free and all essays and podcasts will be delivered directly to your email address that you provide. Choose the no pay option.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Episode Description: In this powerful episode of Justice ReDesigned, retired Judge Steven Teske sits down with Kentucky State Senator Whitney Westerfield, a lifelong conservative Republican whose 12-year tenure in Frankfort has exemplified the very values that once defined the Republican Party: fiscal responsibility, public safety through smart policy, limited government, faith and redemption, and a deep commitment to strengthening families and communities.Westerfield, a former Christian County prosecutor and staunch pro-life advocate, discusses how these core conservative principles—once cornerstones of his party—have increasingly been cast aside in favor of punitive, politically expedient policies. Despite chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee, Westerfield found himself increasingly sidelined by colleagues for speaking out against mass incarceration, the gutting of juvenile justice reforms, and the prioritization of culture-war politics over data-driven governance.His deeply personal transformation—from a black-and-white thinker to a policymaker embracing nuance—stems in part from fatherhood. The adoption of his biracial children, his wife’s pregnancy with triplets, and his legislative work on issues like gun violence, family support, and criminal justice reform, all reflect a conservative rooted in compassion, conscience, and constitutional integrity, not partisan orthodoxy.In this candid conversation, Senator Westerfield unpacks:* Why he voted against Kentucky’s HB 5 crime bill despite party pressure* His frustrations with “tough on crime” policies that ignore fiscal realities and human outcomes* His fight for legislation like the Crisis Aversion and Rights Retention (CARR) Act and the CROWN Act* How his faith calls him to challenge racism, extremism, and cruelty—whether in policy or in tweets* Why he believes the Republican Party must reclaim its moral compass before it loses future generationsThis episode is more than a conversation—it’s a case study in principled conservative leadership at a time when truth and integrity often come at a cost.Guest Bio: Senator Whitney H. Westerfield, 43, served in the Kentucky Senate for 12 years representing Christian County and surrounding areas. A former Commonwealth’s Attorney and dedicated public servant, Westerfield chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and was a leading voice in juvenile justice reform, family support policy, and criminal justice system modernization. Known for his evangelical Christian values and pro-life stance, he has also been an outspoken critic of Trump-era distortions of conservatism. Married with two children (and triplets on the way), he is stepping away from public office to focus on his law practice and growing family—but not before leaving a legacy of courage, compassion, and conviction. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Episode 2 — Constitutional Doctrine Deep Dive: What the First Amendment Actually ProtectsEpisode DescriptionSo much of the debate around Trump’s university “Compact” hinges on one claim repeated by its architects:“Academic freedom isn’t absolute.”In Episodet 2 of The Compact for Obedience, I dig into that assertion — and show why it collapses under the weight of actual constitutional doctrine.This episode goes past the politics and straight into the Supreme Court’s own words. We unpack:Why political, social, and academic speech receive the most absolute First Amendment protectionWhy the Compact’s viewpoint-specific restrictions are not “reform” … they’re unconstitutionalWhy coercing universities with federal funding is exactly the kind of “gun to the head” the Court warned againstAnd how Marc Rowan’s claims about free speech reveal a misunderstanding of the very doctrine he invokesIf Episode 1 introduced the players, Segment 2 reveals the stakes:This isn’t just a policy disagreement. It’s a direct challenge to the constitutional principles that define American academic life.If you’ve ever wondered what the Supreme Court really says about academic freedom — this is your episode. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Episode 1 — “The Compact for Obedience”: Who Is Marc Rowan, and Why Is He Reshaping Higher Education?Episode Description What happens when a billionaire financier believes he can “fix” American universities — not by funding scholarships or research, but by helping the White House design a federal compact that tells campuses what they can (and cannot) say?That’s the question at the heart of The Compact for Obedience.In Episode 1 in this series titled The Compact for Obedience, I introduce the architect behind the Trump administration’s controversial university “compact”: Marc Rowan, CEO of Apollo Global Management and one of the most influential — and misunderstood — figures in today’s fight over academic freedom. Rowan is not merely a critic of higher education; he’s shaping national policy from the inside, pushing universities toward an unprecedented form of federal oversight disguised as “reform.”But there’s a deeper issue here: Do wealthy individuals and political leaders truly understand the First Amendment principles they’re trying to rewrite?In this opening episode, I break down Rowan’s background, his rising influence, and why his claims about academic freedom reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law. If you want to understand how a handful of ultrawealthy actors are trying to reorder American higher education — and why the rest of us should care — this episode is where the story begins.In episodes 2, 3, 4, and 5, we take a deep dive into what the First Amendment actually protects, how “Reform” became a cover for control, examine what a REAL academic compact would look like, and question what we should choose to protect. After producing the first couple of episodes, the circumstances surrounding the Administration's push to have universities sign on to the Compact were evolving, so I made episode 6 to update listeners on these new developments.This is not just a policy debate. It’s a warning.Because when government power and billionaire influence collide, academic freedom becomes the first casualty. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

As Thanksgiving arrives, we often turn our attention to family gatherings, shared meals, and the ritual of saying thanks. But what if gratitude is more than a holiday sentiment — what if it’s a science-backed force that could strengthen our patience, honesty, generosity, and even our democracy?In this Thanksgiving episode of Justice ReDesigned, I explore the transformative power of gratitude — not as a polite gesture, but as a daily practice with profound psychological and social consequences. Drawing on the research of psychologist Dr. David DeSteno, whose work shows how gratitude reshapes our behavior, our relationships, and even our immune systems, we ask a bigger question:If more of us practiced gratitude intentionally, could we be a less polarized nation?Could gratitude pull us back from the harshness, cynicism, and performative outrage that dominate so much of our public life?In his conversation with WBUR’s On Point, Dr. DeSteno highlighted how gratitude can inspire patience over impulsivity, cooperation over conflict, and empathy over ego. But he also warned of its misuse — pointing to moments when public figures have demanded gratitude as a form of loyalty, an expectation rooted not in humility but in power. That contrast — between authentic gratitude and its distorted cousin — offers a timely lens through which to understand our cultural moment.This episode blends science, storytelling, and a bit of soul-searching. I reflect personally on how gratitude has shaped my own thinking throughout my judicial career, my reform work, and the many moments when difficult people and difficult systems could have hardened my heart — but didn’t.And ultimately, I pose a challenge:What would America look like if gratitude, not grievance, set the tone of our daily interactions?What would our politics look like? Our classrooms? Our communities? Our dialogue with one another?On this Thanksgiving, I invite you to take a few minutes to listen, reflect, and maybe begin your own daily gratitude practice — not because it’s sentimental, but because it’s transformative. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Justice ReDesigned — Episode: The Leadership Blueprint with Judge Julius “J” CorpeningIn this episode, I sit down with Judge Julius “J” Corpening of New Hanover County, North Carolina—one of the nation’s most forward-thinking juvenile court judges and a model for what judicial leadership should look like.Judge Corpening doesn’t just preside from the bench. He rolls up his sleeves off the bench, bringing innovative programs and evidence-based practices to the children and families of coastal North Carolina. His work is reshaping both dependency and delinquency systems—not through force, but through collaboration, vision, and moral courage.One of the most impactful innovations he championed is the School-Justice Partnership Model, a framework our team developed in Clayton County, Georgia, to reduce school-based arrests and keep kids on a path to graduation. Judge Corpening first encountered the model in 2012 when he heard me speak at a national convening of representatives from 48 states in New York City. He walked out convinced: this is what North Carolina needs.Shortly afterward, he invited me and my technical-assistance team to Wilmington. Together with educators, law enforcement leaders, and community stakeholders, Judge Corpening forged an interagency agreement that fundamentally changed how schools respond to student misbehavior.The results?Graduation rates climbed. Juvenile crime dropped. Lives changed. Communities strengthened.But Judge Corpening’s contribution didn’t stop in Wilmington. Through years of persistent leadership, coalition-building, and advocacy, he helped spread the model across the state—so successfully that North Carolina ultimately mandated School-Justice Partnerships statewide.This episode is more than a conversation; it’s a case study in what good leadership looks like when the stakes are high and the lives of children hang in the balance. Judge Corpening’s story is a blueprint for how one judge—by empowering others—can transform outcomes for an entire generation of young people.If you care about juvenile justice reform, educational equity, or what it means to build a healthier community, you will not want to miss this discussion. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Author’s Note:This is Part 2 of my series on the Big Beautiful Bill, a law that manages to turn cruelty into policy and greed into virtue.In Part 1, I wrote about how slashing Medicaid will strip millions of Americans of health care and condemn tens of thousands to early graves so billionaires can gild their yachts.This second installment focuses on how the same law rips food from the mouths of children, families, and the elderly by gutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).And based on my research, it has become clear that a Part 3 is necessary — to fully expose the myths and lies about poverty and the poor that make such policies possible, and to show how the Big Beautiful Bill exploits those misconceptions to justify its cruelty.If justice means anything, it must mean seeing through the lies.Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Image generated by AI with reference input provided by the author using the prompt, ‘Create an image that depicts a ‘A child, elderly person, and a disabled person looking concerned and worried as they look down to read a letter informing them that they will no longer receive SNAP”,’ Created by ChatGPT (Open AI), July 2025.How dare they.Alongside its brutal Medicaid cuts, the Big Beautiful Bill slashes SNAP by an estimated $186 billion over the next decade that will cause 22.3 million families to lose some or all of their SNAP benefits — a staggering blow to the largest and most effective anti-hunger program in America. This is not trimming fat. This is cutting to the bone and then some.SNAP currently helps about 41 million Americans put food on the table. Nearly two-thirds of recipients are children, the elderly, or people with disabilities — people not “gaming the system” but simply trying to eat.And yet Congress and the president saw fit to snatch even that away.Why?So billionaires can build bigger champagne cellars and add more zeroes to their investment accounts.We should be clear about what SNAP does. It is not a luxury. It is not welfare fraud. It is not some bloated entitlement. It is one of the most effective, efficient programs we have for fighting poverty and hunger. The average benefit comes out to about $6 a day — hardly enough to dine on steak and caviar, but just enough to keep a family afloat.When you cut SNAP, people do not magically become self-sufficient overnight. They go hungry. Parents skip meals to feed their kids. Children show up to school unable to focus, their stomachs growling. Pregnant women deliver lower-weight babies. Food pantries run dry. People get sick. And some die.What happens when SNAP is cut?We know exactly what happens, because we’ve seen it before:* Food insecurity spikes.* Hospitalizations increase.* Educational outcomes plummet.* Chronic illnesses rise.Local economies suffer — every SNAP dollar generates up to $1.50 in economic activity, supporting farmers, grocers, and communities.The USDA estimates that 41 million Americans rely on SNAP. The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities confirms that most are children, elderly, or disabled. And yet the architects of this bill have no problem throwing them under the bus — then backing the bus over them just to make sure.Image generated by AI with reference input provided by the author using the prompt, ‘Create an image that depicts a ‘A mother sitting at dinner table showing her children why there is no food on the plates and no food in the pantry”,’ Created by Google Gemini (Open AI), July 2025.Desmond was right: poverty is a policy choiceIn Poverty, By America, Matthew Desmond argues that poverty persists not because it is inevitable, but because we choose to tolerate it — or worse, to create it. We underfund the IRS so the ultra-wealthy can cheat the system, then claim there’s no money left to feed hungry kids.That is exactly what’s happening here: the government could collect more from tax cheats at the top, but instead chooses to gut SNAP and Medicaid to bankroll billionaires.We have the money. What we lack is the morality.Growing poverty, growing consequencesThis is not just cruel. It is reckless. When hunger spreads, desperation follows. When families are forced to choose between rent and food, crime often rises. When children grow up malnourished, their potential — and our future — is stunted.You cannot build a healthy, prosperous America on empty stomachs.Justice demands moreHow dare they take food from children’s mouths to line their own pockets? How dare we let them?Hunger is not inevitable. Poverty is not inevitable. They are deliberate choices written into law.This bill made the wrong choice — for all the wrong reasons.We cannot let justice starve while the rich feast first. We cannot let this stand.Every member of Congress who voted for this should have to look into the hollow eyes of a hungry child and explain why their dinner was less important than another yacht.But they won’t. Because they know there is no justification.And if you happen to be one of the Americans who nodded along when Senator Mark Mullin said, “We don’t pay people to be lazy,” or when Congressman Steve Scalise sneered about “able-bodied men living in their mothers’ basements playing video games,” or when Congressman Pat Fallon spat out his caricature of the poor as people who just need to “get off the couch, stop eating your Cheetos, stop buying your medical marijuana, and watching TV” — then do yourself a favor: hold your breath until you read Part 3. Because the reality about poverty — who it touches, how hard it is to escape, and who is really gaming the system — is not just different from what these purveyors of misinformation claim. It is the opposite. And believing their false narratives isn’t just cruel. It keeps us all poorer, sicker, and weaker while the ultra-wealthy laugh all the way to their tax havens.How dare they.How dare we let them.Steven Teske is a retired judge who presided over juvenile delinquency and child abuse and neglect cases and in superior court presiding over adult civil and criminal matters. He has testified before Congress on four occasions and numerous state legislatures on law and policy reform. He has a Masters in Political Science and a Doctor of Jurisprudence. He is currently a trial attorney and a consultant and lecturer.Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

NOTE: This essay is Part 1 of a three-part series examining the human toll of the Big Beautiful Bill — a law that manages to be equal parts cruel, cynical, and unnecessary.In this first installment, I focus on the bill’s brutal cuts to Medicaid: a decision that will strip health care from millions, condemn tens of thousands to early graves, and shatter families — all so that the wealthiest Americans can gild their yachts and expand their champagne cellars.If that does not unsettle you, I invite you to read Part 2, which explores another devastating consequence: the bill’s deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which will pull food from the mouths of children and force more families into hunger.Together, these two essays examine a singular and sobering truth: our leaders have chosen to sacrifice the health and dignity of the many to indulge the appetites of the few.If justice means anything, it demands we call this what it is — and refuse to look away.How dare they.Last week, Congress and President Trump signed what they call the “Big Beautiful Bill” — a law that slashes Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade. They did this knowing full well what it means: people will die. Not a few. Not hypothetically. Tens of thousands of Americans — real, breathing people — will lose their lives so the richest 0.1% can get even richer.Image generated by AI with reference input provided by the author using the prompt, ‘Create an image that depicts a ‘A pair of hands, elderly, frail, and clutching a hospital discharge form stamped “Denied” or “Uncovered”,’ Created by ChatGPT (Open AI), July 2025.Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary, estimates over 100,000 preventable deaths over the next decade as more than 11 million people are shoved off Medicaid like unwanted cargo. Others will be left stranded without home health aides, dumped out of hospitals with nothing but a cab voucher and a prayer, forced to choose between medicine and food, between life and despair.And for what?If this were a sacrifice that brought us some transcendent good — if it saved our democracy, defeated some existential threat, healed the earth — maybe the dead could at least be honored for giving their lives to something bigger than themselves.But that is not what this is.And let’s not pretend this is some disinterested act of statesmanship. This bill personally enriches the very man who signed it. Donald Trump — a self-proclaimed billionaire with sprawling real estate holdings, shell companies, and a family dynasty waiting to inherit his fortune — stands to pocket millions from the very tax cuts he delivered at the expense of the poor and the sick. He is not sacrificing for the greater good. He is looting the treasury while telling us to clap.The wealthiest families in America, those in the top 0.1%, will each receive, on average, over $1 million in tax breaks over the next decade. Trump and his family are at the very center of that rarified elite. Every dollar stripped from Medicaid — every ride to dialysis denied, every home health aide fired, every coffin nailed shut too soon — is a dollar that helps finance another yacht, another golf course, another golden trinket for the already-rich, including the president himself. This is not governance. This is plunder.There is no serious economic or moral case that America needs to starve its poor and sick to fatten its billionaires. Even the hospitals will suffer — closing doors, raising costs on everyone else. Rural communities will become health-care deserts. Whole families will collapse under the weight of caregiving with no support. This is not just cruel. It’s stupid — as stupid as cutting the brakes to save gas money while driving full-speed toward a cliff.Image generated by AI with reference input provided by the author using the prompt, ‘Create an image that depicts a ‘Rural hospital under a stormy sky, with a sign reading “Closed” or “For Sale”, while people wait outside.,’ Created by ChatGPT (Open AI), July 2025.And — of course — there’s always a chorus of armchair experts ready to climb aboard the misinformation train, insisting — without a shred of evidence — that Medicaid is just a bloated swamp of fraud and freeloaders. These are the folks who’ve never let facts derail their righteous indignation. But study after study shows that Medicaid not only provides vital care — it saves lives. A major study led by Dartmouth College, found that states that expanded Medicaid saw death rates fall by about 3%, with even greater benefits in the poorest counties. That’s thousands of lives saved every year — while cutting it would cost lives. Meanwhile, the much-ballyhooed “fraud” is a rounding error: Government Accountability Office audits find that fraud accounts for only a tiny fraction of Medicaid spending — far lower than the administrative waste and profiteering in private insurance. The overwhelming majority of Medicaid beneficiaries are children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities — the very people who most deserve our care. Pretending they are undeserving, or that Medicaid is squandered on fraud, is like blaming the fire department for being too busy putting out fires. It’s a lie designed to justify cruelty and greed.And when the “fraud and waste” fairy tale starts to fall apart, they switch tracks to an even more magical notion: that states, with their limitless budgets and boundless goodwill, will simply pick up the slack without breaking a sweat.Some defenders of this bill, including members of Congress, have shrugged off the devastation by claiming that states can simply “fill the gap” left by federal Medicaid and SNAP cuts. That sounds nice in a press release — but it’s nonsense in reality. States can’t print money, and nearly all are required to balance their budgets every year. If they want to replace lost federal funding, they must either raise taxes, cut other essential services, or both — none of which is easy, popular, or guaranteed. And not every state even wants to help. We already see how some states refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, leaving millions without coverage. This bill would deepen that injustice, creating a cruel patchwork where your access to food and health care depends entirely on which side of a state line you live on. Poor states with already frayed budgets will be forced to let their residents sink, while wealthier states struggle — and still fall short — to cover the difference. Punting responsibility to the states isn’t a solution. It’s a cop-out dressed up as federalism, and it will leave the most vulnerable twisting in the wind.And make no mistake: Congress knows all this. That is why they buried the most devastating cuts until after the 2026 midterms, like a snake coiling out of sight, waiting to strike. They know the pain is coming, and they want to keep their jobs long enough to avoid accountability. They’re gambling that by the time voters feel the knife in their backs, it’ll be too late to do anything about it.How dare they.We elect leaders to protect us, to serve the common good. What kind of leader knowingly votes to kill his own constituents to make a tiny number of people richer — including himself?What kind of country allows that?We should not let them hide behind jargon about “budget discipline” and “work requirements.” We know the truth: this is not about work or discipline. It is about power. It is about greed.We cannot quietly accept this. Not when our neighbors are being pushed into their graves to fund another tax cut for people who already have everything. Not when the lives of the elderly, the disabled, the poor — and yes, maybe even us someday — are treated as disposable.Every member of Congress who voted for this should have to look each of those 100,000 doomed Americans in the eye and explain why their lives were worth so little.But they won’t. Because they know there is no justification.And that is why we must speak. Loudly. Relentlessly. Until this law is reversed, until no more lives are fed to the sharks of greed.How dare they.How dare we let them.Steven Teske is an attorney and retired judge. He has testified before Congress on four occasions and numerous state legislatures on law and policy reform. He received his Juris Doctor and Masters in political science degrees from Georgia State University in Atlanta. He has been appointed by governors to several state boards, and is a former adjunct law professor and currently is an adjunct professor in criminal justice studies. He has published extensively on law and policy reform. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe

Justice is not a mood. It is not a gust of wind that shifts with public opinion. It is not a cudgel to be wielded against those we dislike. And it is certainly not whatever the loudest voice or the most powerful leader says it is. Justice—true justice—is the bedrock of a democratic republic. It is a compass, not a weapon. A principle and a process, both of which must be honored if we are to remain a nation governed by law, not by impulse.If this sounds lofty, it is. The framers of the Constitution set the bar high, like architects designing a cathedral meant to outlast generations. They built a structure that demands more of us than vengeance. They wrote a Constitution that begins not with power but with purpose: "to establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." The order matters. Justice is first. Without it, the rest is a house without a foundation.So what is justice? Justice is the application of law with fairness, impartiality, and integrity. It is rooted in the principle that all people—yes, all people—deserve due process, no matter who they are or what they are accused of doing. That includes citizens and non-citizens alike. It includes those who obey the law and those who violate it. Justice does not discriminate, because the moment it does, it becomes something else: oppression dressed in the robes of legitimacy.It is troubling, then, to watch the current administration bend and break the boundaries of justice under the guise of public safety. The use of inflammatory rhetoric to describe entire groups of people—such as undocumented migrants—as criminals and threats is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous. There is no justice in fearmongering. There is only fear, spreading like wildfire through a dry forest of ignorance.This does not mean we should ignore horrific crimes. The tragic murder of Laken Riley was horrendous and heartbreaking. It deserves national mourning and accountability. But to seize on one family’s profound loss and exploit it to justify sweeping generalizations—suggesting that such crimes are common among undocumented migrants when all credible data shows otherwise—is disingenuous to the truth and deeply disrespectful to the Riley family. Using her name to perpetuate a false narrative may win applause at a rally, but it desecrates the principle of justice and turns personal tragedy into political currency.Let us be clear: I am not suggesting that the administration abandon its lawful authority to enforce immigration laws. Undocumented entry into the United States is a civil violation, and removal proceedings are authorized under federal law. But justice is not simply about what the law permits—it is about how we exercise that power. Arresting individuals without due process, bypassing hearings required by immigration statutes, and instead putting them on an airplane and shipping—not deporting, but shipping—them like cargo to a foreign prison where they may languish indefinitely without charges or recourse, is not immigration enforcement. It is extrajudicial punishment. It is exile without trial. In the plainest moral terms, it is not deportation—it is kidnapping with a government seal.Let us also be clear: the data does not support the narrative that undocumented migrants are a threat to public safety. In fact, study after study confirms that they are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. But facts rarely survive in the furnace of political manipulation. Instead, we are fed the embers of suspicion—told that our safety requires the erosion of due process, that swift and severe action is preferable to lawful procedure. It is a false choice dressed up as necessity.Public safety and due process are not enemies. One protects our bodies, the other protects our soul as a nation. Sacrificing one for the other is like extinguishing a fire with gasoline—it only ensures the blaze will return, fiercer and less controllable.In 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at the Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, warning that the greatest threat to the republic would not come from a foreign power, but from within—from the lawless spirit of mob rule and the erosion of respect for the rule of law. “As a nation of freemen,” he said, “we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” His words feel hauntingly prescient today, like a lighthouse flashing in a storm we chose not to see coming.When the executive branch promotes policies or rhetoric that diminish the dignity of others under the banner of safety, we must ask: Is this just? When due process is circumvented because it is inconvenient, we must ask: Is this justice? When government officials use generalized accusations to inflame public sentiment against vulnerable populations, we must ask: Who benefits, and at what cost?Justice ReDesigned is a space born from that line of questioning. This site will explore the many ways our systems—criminal, civil, immigration, child welfare, public health—succeed or fail at delivering justice. It will challenge those in power when they trade principle for popularity or fear. And it will advocate for a return to a definition of justice that demands fairness, not just punishment; truth, not just narrative.You do not have to agree with every policy decision to believe in due process. You do not have to welcome every immigrant to believe in their humanity. You only have to believe that justice—real justice—is not ours to bend at will. It must remain a constant, like a North Star that guides us through even the darkest political nights.Because if justice only applies to those we like or agree with, it is not justice at all. It is favoritism with a badge. It is the rule of men (and women), not the rule of law.The future of our democracy depends on our willingness to defend justice, not just in theory, but in practice. Even—especially—when it’s hard. Because when we abandon it, we don’t just lose a value—we lose ourselves. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe