In the realm of democracy, no one finds joy in being told they’re on the wrong path, especially politicians whose careers thrive on public approval. However, the essence of democracy lies in the ability to critique and highlight governmental missteps. Without such freedoms, democracy risks becoming a mere façade. Thus, political figures must nurture a “civic sensibility,” learning not only to accept criticism but, ideally, to appreciate it.

Unfortunately, this particular sensibility is not a hallmark of President Trump’s leadership style. His tenure has been marked by a tendency to perceive even mild criticisms as severe attacks or signs of chaos.

This sensitivity is especially apparent in his efforts to suppress protests against his immigration strategies in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago. His administration frequently inflates the dangers these demonstrations purportedly pose to public safety and federal institutions.

A notable example involves Solicitor General John Sauer, who petitioned the Supreme Court to approve the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago. Sauer characterized the protests as “prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance” that supposedly endangered lives and obstructed federal law enforcement.

However, these assertions have faced scrutiny and been dismissed by numerous federal courts. Recently, a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined others in denouncing the president’s exaggerated narrative. On October 16, the panel meticulously reviewed the district court’s findings, offering a crucial distinction between legitimate protest and rebellion. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a balanced perspective on civil demonstrations.

Before looking at what the court said, let me first say a few words about protest and its value in this country. 

Political scientist Michael Lipsky describes protest as “political action oriented toward objection to one or more policies or conditions, characterized by showmanship or display of an unconventional nature, and undertaken to obtain rewards from political or economic systems while working within the system.” 

“Working within the system,” protest is a way of giving voice to grievances. As Lipsky suggests, it can be targeted toward a particular policy or, as in the No Kings protests, toward a president and his administration more generally. 

The fact that the MAGA crowd in Washington labelled those protests “Hate America” events says a lot about their attitude toward people who do not share their goals or the way they are pursuing them. And if that was not clear enough, on the day of the protests, Trump posted on Truth Social a video of him in a fighter jet, with “King Trump” painted on the side, showing him dropping what appears to be feces on protesters.  

To detest protest is to detest democracy. People take to the streets to stop the government from doing things that are incompatible with their view of the nation’s values. Doing so signifies an extraordinary level of commitment to those values. I think a commentator on the No Kings protests got it right when he said, “The No Kings demonstrators are American patriots.” 

The Seventh Circuit stood up for the right to protest when it reminded the president that “political opposition is not rebellion.” It went on, as if offering a civics lesson to the occupant of the Oval Office, to explain, “A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protesters advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the US government, (or) use civil disobedience as a form of protest.” 

The court criticized the president for failing to recognize that a protest does not become a rebellion “merely because of sporadic and isolated incidents of unlawful activity or even violence committed by rogue participants in the protest.” It explained that “The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, do not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority.” 

Even if the Supreme Court overturns the appellate court’s decision barring Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago, it can’t wipe away its words. The Seventh Circuit opinion warns Americans to be wary of the president’s claims about violence and rebellion.  

The court points out the absurdity of those claims by noting that the same day Trump federalized the National Guard in response to what he called a “coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing federal law enforcement activities,” only “a few dozen protesters demonstrated” at an ICE detention facility in a Chicago suburb.

Putting those two statements side by side shows how out of touch the president seems with reality.

Americans would be well advised to remember that the next time he treats protest as rebellion. We should also remember that it is the duty of political leaders in a democracy not to make a federal case out of moments when the people, whether in small or large groups, gather to criticize them. 

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.