Officials Above the Law? The Ordinary Times Test

On October 26, 2026, former federal prosecutors and human rights leaders launched The Rule of Law Project, a nonpartisan organization aimed at restoring criminal accountability for public officials and law enforcement whose conduct has gone unexamined and unpunished. The group's stated purpose is to investigate alleged wrongdoing by public officials and prepare evidence for authorities willing and able to act.

Mark Blumberg, who spent nearly 30 years in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division investigating and prosecuting official misconduct-and who for the last 20 years led DOJ efforts on civil rights threats, as well as service on the FBI's Shooting Investigation Review Group and Customs and Border Protection's National Use of Force Review Board, serves as executive director. Brad Adams, who directed Human Rights Watch's investigations of state violence for 20 years, and Cynthia Deitle, a 22-year FBI veteran including civil rights investigation leadership, are listed as co-founder and board chair, and chief investigator, respectively. The organization's advisory council includes Roy L. Austin Jr., Mark Bergman, Reed Brody, Erwin Chemerinsky, Natalie Bridgeman Fields, Stephanie Hinds, Aziz Huq, Gary Restaino, and Beth Van Schaack; Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, also serves on the board.

The project will use a standard it calls the Ordinary Times Test, under which it will only pursue cases that an independent Justice Department would have pursued in the same circumstances. Its investigation priorities include public corruption-the use of government office for private gain, including officials who solicit or accept something of value in exchange for influencing their duties, who improperly seek to influence executive or legislative actions, or whose official acts affect their personal financial interest-alleged excessive force and improper detention conditions, particularly involving ICE and Customs and Border Protection, and interference with voting rights and other protected liberties. The group will gather evidence and witness statements and assemble prosecution-ready case files for referral to state and local prosecutors or a future Department of Justice; it states it will not have subpoena power and will be funded by undisclosed private donors.

The Rule of Law Project describes itself as nonpartisan and says it will investigate corruption among members of both parties. Its founders state they are applying the same investigative rigor they once used in countries where the rule of law had collapsed, now directed at practices at home, with the goal of ensuring the law applies equally to the powerful and the rest of society and laying the foundation for future prosecutions when conditions for accountability become possible.

Specific allegations referenced by the group over the past 20 months include an FBI-recorded undercover sting in which former acting ICE director Tom Homan accepted $50,000 in cash-a claim Homan has denied-and a New York Times report that former DOJ official Alina Habba received a $50 million compensation package from the daughter of a Venezuelan billionaire who sought and received a pardon from Trump, which Habba denies wrongdoing on, and which the DOJ has not indicated whether it will investigate. The group also cites ICE shootings in Maine and Minneapolis, noting that the DOJ declined to open civil rights investigations in those cases. Additionally, the group references news stories about the Trump Justice Department's decision to decline moving forward on FBI investigations of potential illegal cash-for-contract schemes involving Republican Senator Susan Collins, the late Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, and Democratic Representative James Clyburn.

Since the project's announcement, DOJ officials have stated that the department assesses each case on the merits and dispute the idea that they ignore potential criminal activity. Attorney General Todd Blanche told NBC he would not pledge to run the department independent of Trump and the White House, saying he is not going to make that pledge and that no attorney general should ever pledge that. The department has traditionally operated independently of the White House in choosing which cases to investigate and prosecute since Watergate. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and a board member of the project, said since the current U.S. government won't investigate allegations of ICE violence or official corruption, the group will, to lay the foundation for prosecutions when they become possible. Brad Adams, founder of the project, said the group was responding to a climate in which senior officials openly engage in corruption and federal agents beat and kill innocent people with impunity, adding that the rule of law is on life support but it is everyone's responsibility to make sure it doesn't die.

Original Sources: ruleoflawproject.org, ms.now, 3quarksdaily.com, ffein.substack.com, news.az, rawstory.com, morningstar.com

Category: Justice

Keywords: adams, austin, bergman, blumberg, border, brody, chemerinsky, customs, fbi, fields, hinds, huq, restaino, roth, schaack

Actionable information: The article announces a new organization and its mission but offers no clear steps, choices, instructions, or tools that a reader can use soon. It describes the group's purpose and leadership but provides no way for an ordinary person to act on the information, engage with the project, or apply any guidance in daily life. There are no resources, contact points, or practical next steps offered, so a reader cannot take any action based on what is presented.

Educational depth: The piece conveys surface-level facts—a launch date, a name, some leader backgrounds, and a few focus areas—but it does not explain how the "Ordinary Times Test" works, what criteria determine which cases are pursued, or the broader systems behind accountability for public officials. Numbers, names, and placement orders appear without methodological detail or reasoning that would help a reader understand how such evaluations are made or why they matter beyond the headline.

Personal relevance: For a person not closely following civil rights law or government accountability, the information does not affect safety, money, health, decisions, or responsibilities in any meaningful way. It pertains to institutional processes and a newly formed advocacy group, which remain distant from everyday circumstances. The article offers no connection to real-life outcomes, personal choices, or practical concerns most people encounter daily.

Public service function: There are no warnings, safety guidance, emergency information, or anything that helps the public act responsibly. The article simply recounts the formation of an organization and its stated goals. It does not frame the event as a public concern with actionable steps, nor does it provide context that would enable responsible evaluation or engagement by readers outside the specific issue area.

Practical advice: No steps or tips are given that an ordinary reader can realistically follow. There is no guidance on how to assess institutional claims, how to evaluate reports of official misconduct, or any other takeaway that could be applied in everyday life. The guidance is entirely absent, and what is presented consists only of descriptive statements about an organization's aims.

Long-term impact: The focus is entirely on a single announcement and the immediate framing of a new group's purpose. It offers no help for planning ahead, building safer habits, making stronger personal choices, or avoiding repeating problems in the future. Any takeaway is tied to a short-lived news cycle rather than lasting personal benefit, and the article does not support the reader in developing enduring understanding or practices.

Emotional and psychological impact: The language may generate concern or interest, especially around themes of impunity and institutional strain, but it does not offer clarity, calm, or constructive thinking. It does not provide a framework for the reader to process the information meaningfully or respond constructively. The reader is left with a sense of event outcomes without a path to act or understand the meaning more deeply, which can leave feelings unresolved rather than supported.

Clickbait or ad-driven language: The article does not rely on exaggerated or dramatic claims solely for attention, but it does use framing devices such as "the rule of law is under strain" and "senior officials engaging in corruption" to shape perception. This is consistent with issue-driven advocacy writing and does not rise to the level of overt clickbait, yet it prioritizes narrative framing over substantive explanation, which limits the article's informational integrity for a general audience.

Missed chances to teach or guide: The article presents a problem—alleged impunity and corruption among public officials—but fails to provide steps, examples, context, or a way for the reader to learn more about how accountability systems work, how to evaluate such claims, or how to engage constructively. It misses the chance to teach about investigative standards, the role of oversight bodies, or how citizens can follow or support accountability efforts in practical ways.

Real value add: When similar institutional announcements or accountability claims appear in the media a reader can begin by identifying the core question what specific conduct is being alleged and on what evidence the claim is based look for independent descriptions of the same events from at least two reputable sources consistency increases confidence while major contradictions signal the need for caution consider whether the language used describes verified actions ongoing investigations or preliminary findings and be wary of certainty expressed before formal processes conclude if the story involves public officials or law enforcement reflect on whether the described behavior if true would affect your own safety rights or community services and think about what personal boundaries or precautions might be relevant regardless of the specific outcome build a simple habit of noting the key details of any significant civic or legal story and verifying them through at least two credible outlets then deciding whether any action is required on your part such as updating how you engage with local services adjusting personal records or simply staying informed without becoming overwhelmed this practice applies broadly whenever major public issues arise and helps you remain aware and in control without needing specialized knowledge or external searches it relies only on basic reasoning common sense and the understanding that informed caution is always preferable to uncritical acceptance or unnecessary alarm.

The text picks words that make officials and agents seem guilty. "Senior officials engaging in corruption and federal agents acting with impunity" puts harsh labels on them. These words come before any details about specific cases. The reader may feel the subjects are wrong because of the language used.

The project describes its own review rule using language that does not explain the standard. "The group uses a standard it calls the Ordinary Times Test, meaning it will only investigate cases that an independent Justice Department would have pursued in the same circumstances" gives a test without saying what it means. The phrase "independent Justice Department" is not defined in the text. This lets the project pick cases based on a rule that is not clear to the reader. As a result, it is hard to know if the rule is fair or just.

The text starts with emotional cues that set the project’s framing. Phrases like “the rule of law is under strain,” “senior officials engaging in corruption,” and “federal agents acting with impunity” show concern and urgency; their moderate strength tells the reader the situation feels serious enough to need a response. These words appear early and help the reader see the organization’s start as a fix for a real problem, not just a guess. Later, statements about the goal “to restore criminal accountability” and the promise “not to retribution but ensuring the law applies equally” show determination and fairness, aiming to present the group as principled. The part about investigators “applying the same investigative rigor they once used in countries where the rule of law had collapsed, now directed at practices at home” adds seriousness, stressing that the founders think the domestic situation needs the same level of attention. Mentions of the leadership’s “nearly 30 years in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division” and an “expert Advisory Council” with former officials and human‑rights leaders build trust by linking the project to experienced people, which affects how the reader judges its credibility. Finally, critical descriptions such as “unnecessary and excessive force,” “improper conditions of confinement,” and conduct that “solicit or accept something of value in exchange for influencing their duties” show disapproval of specific practices, pointing the reader toward why the project’s focus matters.

These emotional tones affect how the reader reacts. The concern and urgency from the opening lines invite the reader to take the project seriously, creating worry about system failure and a desire for accountability. The determination and fairness language likely builds confidence and encourages support, since it appeals to ideas of equal justice. The seriousness framing may make the reader reflect on how big the issues are, leading to view the project’s work as important. Trust‑building references to experienced leaders make the reader more likely to accept the organization’s methods and claims. The critical disapproval of certain conduct can create sympathy for the project’s aims and motivate the reader to stay informed or support similar efforts to check power, while also prompting careful thought about the specific practices mentioned.

The writer picks words that are not neutral; emotionally charged terms replace plainer descriptions to increase impact. For example, “under strain,” “corruption,” and “impunity” are chosen over neutral phrases like “alleged misconduct,” which guides attention toward wrongdoing and urgency. The contrast between “countries where the rule of law had collapsed” and “practices at home” uses comparison to raise the stakes, suggesting the domestic situation is as serious as international crises. Describing force as “unnecessary and excessive” or conditions as “improper” frames the expected investigations as responsive to real problems without showing evidence in the text, which steers the reader toward accepting the project’s focus. These word choices, along with placing urgency‑creating statements at the start, shape opinion, encourage supportive engagement, and reinforce the idea that the organization’s work is necessary and justified, all while avoiding overt storytelling or extreme exaggeration.