The Rule of Law Brief

Nathan M. F. Charles — Former federal prosecutor and Navy SEAL officer; Managing Partner at Charles International Law.
  • 0.0 (0)
  • NEWS COMMENTARY
  • UPDATED DAILY

A principled defense of constitutional governance, civil liberties, and professional ethics in the face of rising authoritarianism—anchored in legal rigor, national security insight, and a commitment to nonviolent resistance. natecharles.substack.com

  1. Anti-Sharia Laws and the Politics of Manufactured Fear

    8H AGO

    Anti-Sharia Laws and the Politics of Manufactured Fear

    In this episode, I examine the recent wave of anti-Sharia legislation moving through Republican-controlled states and ask a basic question: what problem are these laws actually solving? There is no serious legislative effort anywhere in the United States to replace constitutional law with Sharia doctrine. Courts already invalidate any state action that infringes constitutional rights. So legally, these bills do nothing. Symbolically, however, they do quite a bit — and none of it strengthens the republic. Drawing on James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, this episode explores how the Constitution was designed to control the effects of faction, passion, and prejudice — not to weaponize them. Madison warned against a majority “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion… adverse to the rights of other citizens.” The structure of republican government was meant to refine and enlarge public views, not inflame them. Anti-Sharia legislation reveals something deeper than bias. It reveals a political strategy that capitalizes on fear, activates resentment, and exploits the very human fallibilities the framers sought to restrain. This is not about religion alone. It is about whether constitutional democracy is being strengthened — or strategically degraded. Topics Covered: * The absence of any credible Sharia “threat” in U.S. law * Why these statutes are legally redundant * Federalist No. 10 and the danger of faction * Majority passion versus constitutional restraint * The difference between leadership and agitation * Power pursued for its own sake If you value clear constitutional analysis without partisan spin — and you want serious discussions about national security, democracy, and the rule of law — subscribe. This publication examines power as it is actually pursued and used, and what that means for constitutional self-government. No theatrics. No slogans. Just analysis grounded in law, history, and institutional reality. Subscribe to stay informed — and to stay serious. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    5 min
  2. Branding the Department of Justice

    1D AGO

    Branding the Department of Justice

    In this episode, I examine Donald Trump’s decision to place his own image on a large banner outside the headquarters of the United States Department of Justice — and why that symbolism matters. Trump’s strongest and most consistent skill has always been branding. From Trump Towers to Trump Steaks to Trump University, his public life has revolved around turning his persona into a product. That instinct may work in commercial real estate and television. It is far more dangerous when imported into constitutional governance. The Department of Justice is supposed to embody one of the most foundational maxims of our republican system: we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Justice is meant to be blind, detached, and neutral — not personalized, not branded, not turned into a backdrop for a political figure. When a president places his own face on the headquarters of the Justice Department, it symbolically collapses the distinction between the individual and the institution. The message — intentional or not — is that the institution is an extension of the man. That justice is whatever he says it is. This episode explores why that shift — from rule of law to rule by personality — is not a stylistic quirk, but a warning sign of constitutional decay. Because when the personality becomes the law, and the law becomes the personality, a republic begins to erode. If you care about the rule of law, constitutional structure, and the health of American institutions, subscribe. I break down legal and political developments without partisan spin — focusing on principles, power, and the long-term stability of our democratic republic. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    4 min
  3. The SAVE Act: Election Integrity or Voter Suppression?

    FEB 12

    The SAVE Act: Election Integrity or Voter Suppression?

    In this episode, we take a hard look at the SAVE Act — the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — and separate rhetoric from reality. The bill would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Supporters argue it protects election integrity. Critics argue it imposes sweeping new barriers in response to a problem that barely exists. We examine: * What the SAVE Act actually requires * The current federal standard for voter registration * Documented data on non-citizen voting in U.S. elections * Why confirmed cases are statistically negligible * How documentary proof requirements affect real-world voters * Who bears the logistical burden of added registration hurdles * The political science behind voting “friction” and turnout The data show that proven instances of non-citizen voting are extraordinarily rare — measured in dozens of cases across tens of millions of ballots. There is no credible evidence that such cases have altered federal election outcomes. At the same time, millions of lawful U.S. citizens do not have immediate access to passports or certified birth certificates. Requiring documentary proof introduces time, cost, and bureaucratic barriers that are not evenly distributed across the electorate. This episode explores whether the SAVE Act is proportionate to the problem it claims to solve — and whether its predictable impact on voter participation is a feature rather than a bug. Only citizens should vote. The real debate is whether imposing broad structural hurdles improves election integrity — or undermines participation. If you value data over slogans and analysis over outrage, subscribe. I break down complex legal and political issues with a clear, evidence-driven approach — no talking points, no tribal spin, just the structural realities that actually shape power in this country. Stay informed. Stay skeptical. Stay engaged. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    4 min
  4. When the Department of Justice Seeks the Indictment It Shouldn’t Win

    FEB 12

    When the Department of Justice Seeks the Indictment It Shouldn’t Win

    In this ad hoc edition of The Rule of Law Brief—recorded from BWI en route to an immigration hearing in Atlanta—I address a deeply troubling development: the Department of Justice reportedly sought a grand jury indictment for seditious conspiracy against members of Congress who urged service members to refuse unlawful orders. The grand jury declined to indict. At first glance, that looks like good news. But the real story is more serious. As a former federal prosecutor in DOJ’s National Security Division, I operated under two overlapping standards: • An ethical obligation not to bring charges without probable cause. • A Department of Justice policy requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt before filing charges. Those are not optional guidelines. They are structural safeguards designed to prevent political prosecutions. When DOJ seeks an indictment for a charge as grave as seditious conspiracy, one of two things must be true: * Prosecutors believed they could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, or * They disregarded federal prosecution standards entirely. Neither possibility is reassuring. The speech at issue—urging service members to refuse illegal orders—is not only protected; it reflects black-letter constitutional law. The military is not required to obey unlawful commands. That principle is foundational. The failure to secure the indictment is not the headline. The attempt to secure it is. If the Department of Justice is willing to pursue charges this aggressive against political speech, the institutional guardrails that once constrained federal power may already be eroding. That is the deeper concern. If you care about the Constitution, prosecutorial ethics, and the real-world state of the rule of law in America, subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief. I break down complex legal developments from the perspective of someone who has served inside the system—and who knows how it is supposed to work. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    4 min
  5. Bridging the Access Gap in Immigration Law

    FEB 9

    Bridging the Access Gap in Immigration Law

    For most people interacting with the U.S. immigration system, the experience falls into one of two extremes. A small number of people have the resources to hire an attorney to handle everything for them from start to finish. Everyone else is forced to navigate a complex, unfamiliar system largely on their own—often relying on fragmented online information that explains the law, but does little to prepare them for real interactions with immigration authorities. That gap is real. And it’s wrong. In this episode, Nate Charles explains why Charles International Law is launching a new line of interactive, simulation-based training courses designed to bridge that gap—providing people with routine immigration cases not just information, but realistic preparation and judgment-building training. This isn’t a collection of passive videos or generic articles. These courses place participants into realistic scenarios, require them to make decisions, and provide feedback—helping people understand how immigration processes actually work and how to prepare responsibly. First Course Announcement We are starting deliberately with a focused offering: K-1 Fiancé(e) Visa Consular Interview Preparation This course is designed for individuals preparing to attend a U.S. embassy or consulate interview for a fiancé(e) visa. It walks through how interviews are structured, what consular officers are evaluating, and the types of questions applicants are likely to be asked—so participants don’t walk into the interview blind. Additional simulation-based training courses are planned as part of a growing library. Explore the Training Catalog All current and future training courses are available here:https://www.charlesinternationallaw.com/training Direct Link to the K-1 Visa Training Course https://www.charlesinternationallaw.com/fianc-visa-consular-interview-training Subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief Clear analysis, practical insight, and updates on new tools we’re building to make the law—and legal processes—more accessible to everyone. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    3 min
  6. When Outrage No Longer Works

    FEB 6

    When Outrage No Longer Works

    Donald Trump’s latest racist post wasn’t shocking. That’s the problem. In this video, I explain why outrage has become the wrong lens for understanding the danger Trump represents—and why focusing on his latest provocation misses the deeper issue entirely. There is no remaining question about his character or his fitness for office. That debate is over. The real questions are harder and far more uncomfortable:What does a constitutional democracy do when a significant portion of the electorate has normalized cruelty, racial dehumanization, and contempt for democratic outcomes? How do we confront an anti-constitutional movement without destroying the Constitution itself in the process? This episode is not about Trump’s post. It’s about what our lack of surprise says about the state of American civic life—and why that should alarm us far more than another offensive video ever could. Outrage is easy. Governing a democracy in moral free-fall is not. Subscribe for clear-eyed analysis at the intersection of constitutional law, national security, and democratic survival—without performative outrage or partisan blinders. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    2 min
  7. Josh Hawley Wants DOJ to Investigate Speech. That’s Not the Law.

    FEB 5

    Josh Hawley Wants DOJ to Investigate Speech. That’s Not the Law.

    In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles examines a recent letter from Senator Josh Hawley urging the Department of Justice to open an investigation into protest activity related to immigration enforcement. While acknowledging the narrow legal point that foreign funding or control of domestic political activity can violate federal law, Nate explains why Hawley’s request collapses under basic constitutional scrutiny. Drawing on his experience in the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Nate walks through: * What the Foreign Agents Registration Act actually requires * Why speculation and political disagreement are not investigative predicates * How the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) strictly limits investigations implicating First Amendment activity * The historical lessons of COINTELPRO, and how modern FBI rules were designed to prevent a return to viewpoint-based suppression of dissent This episode is not about immigration policy. It is about the rule of law—and why political speech, protest, and opposition to government policy cannot lawfully trigger federal investigations. Clear, concise analysis of law, power, and accountability—without partisan spin. Subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief for short, focused explanations of how constitutional limits are supposed to work, and what it means when elected officials test them. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    3 min
  8. Why ICE Administrative Warrants Cannot Justify Home Arrests

    FEB 5

    Why ICE Administrative Warrants Cannot Justify Home Arrests

    In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles examines a recently leaked ICE memorandum that has generated significant controversy by asserting that immigration officers may rely on administrative warrants—specifically Form I-205—to arrest individuals inside their homes. After reviewing the primary source memo itself, Nate walks through the controlling Supreme Court doctrine governing home entry and arrests, focusing on Payton v. New York and Steagald v. United States. He explains what those cases actually hold, what they do not hold, and why judicial authorization—by a detached and neutral magistrate—is the constitutional linchpin for any nonconsensual entry into a home. The episode then turns to the DHS Office of General Counsel’s apparent reasoning, identifies the structural flaw in treating ICE administrative warrants as the equivalent of judicial arrest warrants, and explains why that analogy collapses under Fourth Amendment scrutiny. This is a doctrine-focused, nonpartisan analysis grounded in constitutional law—not speculation, not social-media commentary, and not advocacy framing. Clear analysis. No spin. If you want serious, doctrine-based explanations of how the Constitution actually works—and how it’s being tested in real time—subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    5 min
See All (79)

About

A principled defense of constitutional governance, civil liberties, and professional ethics in the face of rising authoritarianism—anchored in legal rigor, national security insight, and a commitment to nonviolent resistance. natecharles.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Nathan M. F. Charles — Former federal prosecutor and Navy SEAL officer; Managing Partner at Charles International Law.
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    79
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Nate Charles
  • Show Website
    The Rule of Law Brief