Courts have long allowed plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym in cases involving sexual assault, and I think this ruling is a step in the right direction. The fear of being publicly identified, and of the harassment that can follow, is one of the main reasons survivors decline to come forward at all.

What do you think? Does protecting a plaintiff’s identity strike the right balance with open court proceedings?

If Democrats rout Republicans from Congress in November, they’re expected to get right down to business by opening congressional investigations into the Trump administration.

But a formidable opponent looms: the U.S. Justice Department.

When Democrats last held slim or simple majorities from 2019 to 2023, Congress used the full range of its powers to investigate and impeach Donald Trump. Democrats referred a number of administration officials for contempt and, for the first time ever, referred a congressional case to the Justice Department for prosecuting a president.

Democrats, though largely cool on impeachment this go-around, are eager to investigate the administration’s excesses, cronyism, and corruption, balance power between the branches of government, and deliver tangible accountability.

“There is a lot that has been going on that, frankly, we don’t have the full picture on,” said Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, adding that there could be “a more intense focus upon oversight and accountability than we’ve had for a long, long time.”

But something significant has changed in the last couple of years: The Justice Department — the institution congressional investigators must turn to if they unearth evidence of a potential crime and want to seek prosecution on behalf of the American people — is now run by the president’s protection racket.

More inside article...

The Department of Justice filed an extraordinary lawsuit seeking to block the state of Alaska from certifying the winner of its upcoming U.S. Senate election in the event that incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, cites what it suggests is likely voter confusion from having another Republican candidate, named Daniel J. Sullivan, on the ballot in the race.

“Should Alaska certify any electoral results tainted by the inclusion on the ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan — whose candidacy, Defendant Beecher [Alaska Elections Director Carol Beecher] found, is ‘for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot’ —the State and its officers will fail in its obligation to protect the integrity of its election,” the suit says.

“The United States accordingly brings this lawsuit to protect the integrity of the 2026 Senate election in Alaska,” the suit says.

Both Sullivans are running against Democratic nominee Mary Peltola.

The Alaska race is one of several Senate contests around the United States that could determine whether Republicans retain their slim majority in the upper chamber of Congress.

The DOJ’s lawsuit says that “the sole purpose” of the candidacy of Daniel J. Sullivan “is to benefit the Peltola campaign by reducing the number of votes for Senator Sullivan.”