Zombie Laws
The Trump administration has shown a clear willingness to resurrect centuries-old laws in its efforts to stifle dissent and consolidate power—often embracing legal frameworks rooted in eras of blatant inequality and exclusion. Far from shying away from the outdated, the administration appears to relish invoking statutes from a time when power was reserved for straight, white, landowning, Christian men, and when women and people of color were systematically denied basic rights. These archaic laws—once used to suppress minority votes, strip women of property rights, and criminalize protest—are now being repurposed to silence opposition and chill political expression. Shockingly, one Republican-aligned group even cited the notorious Dred Scott decision—which denied citizenship to Black Americans—to argue that Kamala Harris was unqualified to be president. This return to legal tools of oppression reveals a deeper strategy: cloaking modern authoritarian impulses in the legitimacy of America's most unjust legal traditions.
Don't Say Gay has existed for decades (1980s)
Operation Eagle Eye and targeted voter roll purges (1964)
The Communist Control Act and Zohran Mamdani (1954)
Lily-White movement and silencing black voices in government (1888)
The Posse Comitatus Act and Los Angeles Protestors (1878)
The Comstock Act and mailing abortion pills (1873)
Dred Scott V. Sandford and Kamala Harris (1857)
Antebellum south abolitionist book bans and Critical Race Theory (1830-1860)
The Alien Enemies Act and deportation of immigrants (1798)
Preventing atheists from holding public office (1776-1800s)
Don’t say gay laws have existed for decades.
The modern “Don’t Say Gay” laws closely mirror their historical predecessors: both aim to control knowledge and suppress LGBTQ+ representation in schools. Critics warn this is not just censorship—it is a political tool designed to erase queer existence and maintain ideological conformity.
What is it?
“Don’t Say Gay” laws are legislative efforts that restrict or prohibit discussion of LGBTQ+ identities, sexual orientation, and gender identity in schools. These laws first emerged during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in states like Oklahoma (1987), South Carolina (1988), Texas, Arizona, and Louisiana. They forbade teachers from presenting homosexuality in a neutral or affirming manner in sex education or curricula, framing LGBTQ+ existence as inappropriate, immoral, or illegal.
When and How were they Used?
These laws were actively enforced from the late 1980s through early 2000s. In states such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas, educators faced disciplinary action if they included LGBTQ+ topics or resources, even in broader historical or health contexts. The laws were embedded into sex education codes, characterizing any mention of homosexuality as inherently promotional or improper—a label that served to erase LGBTQ+ representation in school settings. Though many of these laws have since been repealed or struck down, their legacy shaped decades of educational censorship.
How is the far right trying to resurrect it?
Silencing Queer History
Beginning in Florida in 2022, the so-called Parental Rights in Education Act, widely dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” law, banned classroom instruction on “sexual orientation or gender identity” from kindergarten through third grade, and prohibited such instruction in any grade if deemed not “age-appropriate”. Critics warned and evidence confirmed that the law’s vagueness has produced a chilling effect, causing teachers to avoid any LGBTQ+ references, leading to the removal of books, avoidance of pronouns, and silencing of queer history across grade levels.
Restricting Discussion
In 2023, the law was further expanded to restrict discussion up through 8th grade, and administrative rules created a de facto ban through high school unless content is specifically mandated by state standards or health courses. Similar legislation has been introduced or passed in multiple states—including Arkansas (SB 294), Indiana (HB 1608), Iowa (SF 496), Kentucky (SB 150), and North Carolina (SB 49)—most modeled directly on Florida’s law, affecting grades K–12.
Over 100 New Educational Gag Orders Introduced in 2023
These laws are part of a broader strategic effort by far-right lawmakers and advocacy groups to censor LGBTQ+ visibility and history in schools. According to PEN America, over 100 new “educational gag orders” have been introduced in 2023, significant portions targeting LGBTQ+ content. Organizations like the Organization of American Historians have condemned them as deliberate erasures of LGBTQ+ history and identity from public education.
Harming Kids Instead of Protecting Them
Despite claims of protecting children, civil rights adversaries argue that these laws endanger LGBTQ+ youth, who face increased mental health risks and isolation when their existence and experiences are silenced. The policies echo antebellum-era censorship in silencing marginalized communities—only today the target is LGBTQ+ students rather than books alone.
Operation Eagle Eye and targeted voter roll purges.
Creating barriers to ballot access disproportionately targets marginalized communities and systematically diminishes their political power, undermining the democratic principle of equal voting rights.
What is it?
Operation Eagle Eye was a voter suppression campaign orchestrated by the Republican National Committee during the 1964 presidential election. Operatives recruited tens of thousands of volunteers to challenge voter eligibility in predominantly Black and Hispanic precincts, particularly in inner-city areas. Using tactics like two-way radios, cameras, and face recognition, poll watchers targeted individuals, questioning literacy, citizenship, or residency—intimidating voters under the guise of preventing fraud.
When and How was it Used?
The operation originated in Arizona in the early 1960s—where future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist led challenges against minority voters—and scaled up nationally in 1964 for Barry Goldwater’s campaign. In that election, mail-to-voter “caging” targeted 1.8 million addresses across 15 cities (e.g., Chicago, Detroit), with undelivered mail used to purge or challenge voter registrations. Organizers claimed they aimed to suppress votes from minority communities—reportedly seeking to block or scare away more than one million voters.
How is the far right trying to resurrect it?
Modern far-right movements have revived the playbook of Operation Eagle Eye through “ballot security” tactics, now repackaged as election integrity initiatives. These include:
voter roll purges
Poll Watchers
Use of Private Tools instead of nonpartisan verification systems
Stricter Ballot access requirements
Despite disclaimers about ballot integrity, the campaign of mass challenges, legally questionable purges, and partisan monitoring aligns with historical voter suppression models—suggesting that Operation Eagle Eye’s legacy continues under new leadership and technologies, risking the erosion of fair and equal access to the ballot.
New York Young Republican Club called for using the Communist Control Act against Zohran Mamdani.
Using the Communist Control Act to deport political enemies is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and political association, as it unjustly targets individuals for their beliefs and expressions, undermining the fundamental constitutional rights that safeguard dissent and opposition in a democratic society.
What is it?
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a U.S. federal law passed during the height of the Cold War, aimed at curbing the influence of communism within the United States. It declared the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) to be part of a conspiracy to overthrow the government. It also made membership in the CPUSA effectively illegal by prohibiting its activities and denying it legal rights such as holding property or appearing on ballots. It also gave the federal government the right to investigate and prosecute individuals or organizations suspected of promoting communism or related subversive activity.
When and How was it Used?
Passed in 1954 with bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress, the Communist Control Act was rarely used in practice despite its sweeping provisions. Legal experts and courts viewed it as constitutionally questionable, particularly in light of First Amendment protections for speech and association. Although the Supreme Court never directly ruled on its constitutionality, the Act was effectively rendered moot by later legal precedents protecting political expression, such as Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). While occasionally cited during anti-communist purges and the McCarthy era, it was not widely used to prosecute or convict individuals.
How is the far right trying to resurrect it?
Republican-aligned groups, including the New York Young Republican Club, are urging former President Trump and his advisors, Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, to weaponize the Communist Control Act of 1954 to strip naturalized citizen Zohran Mamdani of his U.S. citizenship and deport him following his primary win in the NYC mayoral race. They label Mamdani a "communist" or "socialist threat" and claim the Act empowers Trump to remove him despite the law being rarely enforced and legally dubious. Legal experts argue that the Act has been deemed unconstitutional, citing lower-court rulings and strong First Amendment safeguards that prohibit revoking citizenship based on political affiliation. Moreover, denaturalization typically requires proof of fraud during naturalization, not political views, making the GOP push seem more like a political threat than a viable legal strategy.
The Lily-White movement was used to disenfranchise black voices in government.
Although explicit references to a “Lily‑White movement” are rare today, the objective remains: to construct a political environment where Black influence is diminished, both in voting patterns and party structures.
What is it?
The “Lily‑White” movement was a faction within the Republican Party emerging post‑Reconstruction, aimed at expelling Black leaders and voters from party leadership and influence. The term was first coined in 1888 by Black Texas Republican leader Norris Wright Cuney, who accused white conservatives of trying to purge Black Republicans to appeal to Southern white voters.
When and How was it Used?
From the late 19th century into the early 20th century, Southern Republican Party affiliates systematically barred Black delegates from state and national conventions, manipulated rules to deny credentials, and shifted patronage and leadership roles to whites. States like Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas saw effective ousting of Black party members by around 1920, culminating in all-white state conventions and ticket slates. In response, Black Republicans formed separate "Lily Black" conventions and tickets, though never regaining real power.
How is the far right trying to resurrect it?
championed by republican-led legislatures
In modern politics, far-right factions and conservative activists are echoing Lily‑White tactics by endorsing voter suppression laws, gerrymandering, and restrictive ballot access rules that disproportionately affect Black and minority communities. These measures, championed by groups such as the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 allies, and state-level officials in Republican-led legislatures, effectively marginalize Black voters within party influence and leadership despite nominal inclusion.
limit black electoral power
Moreover, current efforts to limit Black electoral power, such as strict identification requirements, limited polling locations, and purging of voter rolls, share strategic goals with the historical Lily‑White era, namely preserving white-dominant party control by reducing Black political participation. Critics argue that these policies are a modern extension of racial exclusion built into American political infrastructure, continuing the legacy of systemic disenfranchisement.
Norris Wright Cuney, chair of the Texas Republican Party
The Posse Comitatus Act is supposed to prevent military deployment on U.S. citizens.
Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles without state consent and absent an invocation of the Insurrection Act threatened to undermine the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act. Trump also deployed 700 active-duty Marines to "guard federal buildings", leading to a legal grey area since these Marines did not participate in arrests.
What is it?
The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted on June 18, 1878, is a federal law that strictly bars the use of the U.S. military (Army and Air Force, later expanded to Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force) for domestic law enforcement, except when explicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. Originating during the end of Reconstruction, it was intended to prevent federal troops from being used to suppress civilian authority, thereby safeguarding democratic governance and civil liberties.
When and How was it Used?
The Act first came into play during the late 19th and mid-20th centuries to restrict military involvement in everyday law enforcement. A notable use was during the Little Rock desegregation crisis in 1957, when President Eisenhower invoked the Enforcement Acts (exceptions to Posse Comitatus) to deploy federal troops to enforce civil rights. However, in recent decades, Posse Comitatus has mostly functioned as a constitutional check, respected more by tradition than rigid enforcement, as its limitations are frequently bypassed through Insurrection Act, Title 32, and Title 10 exceptions.
How is the far right trying to resurrect it?
Far-Right movements challenge federal authority
In recent years, far-right and “sovereign citizen” movements have attempted to twist the Posse Comitatus Act to challenge federal authority, particularly during protests or to counter mandates. These groups advocate that federal military or National Guard troops deployed, especially under Title 10 federalization or even under Title 32 cooperative missions, constitutes overreach and violates federal law. Figures like Richard Mack, associated with the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, have invoked the Act to argue that state sheriffs have more authority than federal authorities, often echoing white supremacist and anti-government sentiments.
concern about executive overreach
Legitimate concern about executive overreach reached a legal flashpoint in June 2025, when former President Trump deployed the National Guard under Title 10 in Los Angeles amid anti-ICE protests. California’s governor and civil liberties groups filed suit, citing Posse Comitatus violations; courts are now determining whether such deployments unlawfully used military forces for civilian law enforcement. Meanwhile, far-right-aligned movements continue to push for stricter enforcement of Posse Comitatus to limit federal involvement, advocating policies that expand state and private militias’ roles in law enforcement.
Project 2025 cites the Comstock Act (1873) to attempt to ban mailing abortion pills.
If enforced as written, the Comstock Act could be used to ban the distribution of abortion-related medication even in states where abortion remains legal, bypassing congressional approval and leveraging federal authority to impose a national abortion ban by mail.
What is it?
The Comstock Act is a federal law passed in 1873 that prohibits the mailing of “obscene” materials, including anything deemed related to contraception, abortion, or sexual content. Named after anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock, the law was part of a broader moral crusade in the 19th century and criminalized the distribution of birth control, abortion supplies, and even educational information about reproduction through the U.S. Postal Service.
When and How was it Used?
For decades, the Comstock Act was used to target and suppress reproductive rights activists, medical professionals, and publishers. Figures like Margaret Sanger, who advocated for birth control access, were prosecuted under the law. Over time, key Supreme Court decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973), rendered much of the act unenforceable, particularly around contraception and abortion, though the law was never fully repealed.
How is the far right trying to resurrect it?
project 2025 outlines how to enforce this act without congressional approval
In recent years, especially following the fall of Roe v. Wade, far-right political actors have revived interest in the Comstock Act of 1873. One of the most high-profile efforts to resurrect this law comes through Project 2025, which outlines how Donald Trump’s administration could leverage executive authority to enforce the Comstock Act without new legislation or congressional approval.
The law could be revived
Under the Comstock Act, it is technically a federal crime to send or receive by mail any “instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing” intended for abortion. While the law has been considered unenforceable for decades, it has never been fully repealed, and some provisions remain on the books. Conservative legal strategists argue that the law could be revived “as written” to:
- Ban the mailing of abortion pills like mifepristone and misoprostol.
- Target providers, pharmacies, or distributors that send these medications across state lines.
- Criminalize mailing medical tools or instructions used in abortion procedures.
- Override state laws by asserting federal supremacy in regulating the mail — effectively imposing a national ban on medication abortion through enforcement mechanisms.
Anthony Comstock, United States Postal Inspector
The National Federation of Republican Assemblies cites Dred Scott V. Sandford (1857) to say that Kamala Harris is not able to run for president.
Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the most notoriously controversial and morally reprehensible rulings in Supreme Court history, and it is deeply disturbing that the NFRA would invoke a decision that upheld slavery and denied Black people citizenship in an attempt to block Kamala Harris from running for president. This interpretation contradicts well-established constitutional law, such as the 1939 case Perkins v. Elg, which affirms that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are U.S. citizens by birth.
What is it?
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not U.S. citizens and therefore had no legal standing to sue in federal court. The ruling also stated that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in U.S. territories, effectively invalidating the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Court held that enslaved people were property under the Fifth Amendment, and thus slaveholders could not be deprived of their slaves without due process.
When and How was it Used?
The Dred Scott decision denied citizenship and legal rights to Black people by declaring that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens, which meant they had no right to sue in federal court or claim protection under the Constitution. This ruling reinforced white supremacy in law and stripped both free and enslaved Black individuals of any legal status. Between 1857 and 1865, it was used by pro-slavery advocates to justify the expansion of slavery into new territories, fueling tensions between the North and South and becoming a major factor in the political crisis that led to the Civil War. The Court also ruled that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and allowing slaveholders to bring enslaved people into any U.S. territory, further extending the reach of slavery. The Dred Scott decision was ultimately overturned by the 13th Amendment in 1865, which abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment in 1868, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved people.
How is the far right trying to resurrect it?
A Republican group, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), has controversially cited the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court ruling to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president. The NFRA claims that the term "natural born citizen" should be interpreted to mean someone born in the U.S. to two citizen parents, and argues Harris (as well as GOP figures Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley) does not meet that standard since her parents were not U.S. citizens at her birth. While referencing Dred Scott, a ruling that denied citizenship to enslaved people and was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the group insisted it does not endorse all aspects of the case.
The antebellum south and abolitionist book bans - What Critical Race Theory looked like in the past.
Modern book bans echo historical antebellum efforts: both seek to control what communities can read and learn. These moves serve a political agenda, limiting critical thinking and dissent, which are key traits of democratic education.
What is it?
During the antebellum period, Southern states enacted harsh anti-literacy laws that criminalized teaching enslaved Black people, and often free Black individuals, to read or write. These laws were rooted in fear: slaveholders believed literate enslaved people could access abolitionist literature, forge passes, or foment rebellion. Violating these laws often led to severe punishments like lashes, fines, imprisonment, or worse.
When and How was it Used?
Southern authorities also prohibited and destroyed anti-slavery books, like Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Hinton Rowan Helper’s The Impending Crisis of the South, often burning copies or prosecuting anyone caught possessing or distributing them. Helper’s book, which challenged the institution of slavery, was so inflammatory that possession could result in legal consequences or even executions in some cases.
Uncle Tom's Cabin
How is the far right trying to resurrect it?
In recent years, conservative and far‑right groups such as Moms for Liberty and Citizens Defending Freedom have championed school and library censorship campaigns targeting books addressing race, gender, and LGBTQ+ themes. These efforts have led to the removal of thousands of titles from public schools, disproportionately affecting marginalized voices. Policies in states such as Florida and South Carolina enforce vague standards like “developmentally appropriate,” which are being used to justify sweeping purges of diverse literature.