Civil Rights Groups Shift Focus to States, Courts Amid Fears of Authoritarian Rollback
A year into President Trump’s second term, civil rights leaders are warning the nation is entering a more volatile phase for both civil rights enforcement and democratic norms. Increasingly, these leaders are bypassing Washington, D.C., and pursuing legal challenges, organizing efforts, and establishing clear boundaries around power, protest, and equal protection.
Civil rights advocates assert the country isn’t grappling with a single crisis, but rather a convergence of legal, economic, and democratic threats. What initially began as concern over the rollback of diversity initiatives has broadened into a larger battle over the rule of law, freedom of speech, and the fundamental American social contract.
The second Demand Diversity Roundtable, convened by the National Urban League on Thursday, January 22, 2026, brought together over 30 leaders. The focus extended beyond simply defending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to actively challenging what participants described as an authoritarian playbook that threatens civil rights enforcement, freedom of protest, and the stability of democracy.
“This is not theoretical,” stated Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, framing the current moment as one defined by tangible consequences. “It’s showing up in paychecks and classrooms, in courtrooms and communities.” He further warned, “We are on the brink of tyranny and authoritarianism.”
The first Demand Diversity Roundtable was held just two days after President Trump’s 2025 inauguration, drawing 18 participants. This second meeting, a year into the administration, comes as states like Illinois and Minnesota assess their legal options.
Leaders report that the impacts of the administration’s policies are being felt unevenly across the country, necessitating responses at the state and local levels. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul explained that states are no longer waiting for federal intervention, emphasizing litigation as a primary tool to challenge what he characterized as increasingly racialized enforcement strategies by federal agencies.
He cited recent tactics employed by ICE in Chicago and police stops in Minneapolis as examples of civil rights concerns surfacing locally and ending up in court. The White House did not respond to a request for comment regarding these allegations.
During the roundtable, Asian American leaders voiced concerns about being frequently excluded from national civil rights strategy discussions, despite their communities facing parallel challenges from immigration enforcement, education rollbacks, and broader civil rights retrenchment.
Sarah von der Lippe, chief counsel at the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, highlighted the benefits that white women have received from DEI policies. “All of us who have benefited need to stand up and talk about it,” she asserted.
At one point, Benjamin F. Chavis Jr., president and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, asked attendees to reflect on the diversity of the room – representing Black, white, Latino, Asian, Arab, Jewish, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ communities – before stating, “This is America.” He continued, “This is not about one community or one issue. This is about whether we will allow civil rights to be dismantled piece by piece — or defend them together.”
One year into the administration, civil rights leaders believe the fight has definitively shifted away from Washington and toward states, courts, and broad-based coalitions. In these arenas, enforcement – not simply rhetoric – will determine the fate of civil rights. As National Bar Association President Ashley Upkins stated, “When equal opportunity is sidelined, institutions lose legitimacy. Litigation increases. Courts become battlegrounds for rights that should never have been up for debate.”
Looking ahead to 2026, Morial emphasized that the year will be a test of political will, not just a focus on candidates. He previewed a pledge campaign that will ask voters to withhold support from politicians unwilling to explicitly support civil rights and equal opportunity. “If you won’t sign it, you haven’t earned our vote,” he declared, adding that voting is not optional in this critical moment. “Not that voting is a panacea… but it’s how we slow this down. It’s how we build barriers to the damage.”
Worth a look
