“You have this superpower." That statement from Qiana Johnson is part of reported training material for residents to engage in "jury nullification," whereby jurors ignore the law and incriminating facts in a given case to nullify any prosecution. Notably, Johnson is the newly elected clerk of Prince George’s County Circuit Court in the Maryland suburbs of Washington. She is part of a growing left-wing movement gaining traction with voters that calls for radical changes to the U.S. legal system.

The effort is to engineer "Twelve Angry Men" scenarios on real juries — but unlike in the movie, the jurors are actually being trained to ignore evidence and deliberations in favor of political outcomes. In her election campaign for her current job, Johnson had to overcome questions about her own criminal record. But many voters are willing to give others a second chance when they show evidence of rehabilitation and contrition. The more immediate concern might be embracing a practice that is expressly barred by courts.

Johnson is part of a new investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into groups training citizens to engage in jury nullification — including Free DC and Harriet's Wildest Dreams, where Johnson was reportedly a board member. One such document allegedly declares, "You have this superpower, and that superpower is you are able to nullify that goddamn jury.”Far-left professors have long advocated that juries use jury nullification.

Georgetown Law professor and MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler has long advocated that Black jurors engage in nullification in cases involving Black defendants. Butler wrote in the Washington Post in 2016: “Confronting the racial crisis in criminal justice, jury nullification gives jurors a special power to send the message that Black lives matter.”The problem of biased jurors has long plagued the legal system. It can work both ways in ignoring the law to refuse or secure convictions.

Past cases involving President Trump and other Republicans have raised bias concerns over the jury pool in cities such as Washington, D.C., and New York City. But jury nullification is different; it is a direct assault on the very foundation of the American court system. The juror is the thumping heart of that system — a group of empowered citizens who swear to consider cases without prejudice or prejudgment. It is not a crime to advocate jury nullification. Moreover, there are legitimate concerns raised by investigations into such groups. about chilling the rights of free speech and association.

In my view, such advocacy is protected speech under the First Amendment. But that is not always the case for lawyers, who can face professional consequences. Many courts bar lawyers from arguing for jury nullification. Calling for jury nullification can also present sanctionable conduct for lawyers in a given case. Even if this is protected speech, voices in both parties need to denounce these efforts. It effectively encourages jurors to lie when they take their oath to follow the law and to shed any outside bias or prejudgment.

It is an effort to enlist jurors in using cases to achieve political and social goals at the expense of the rule of law. The professors and pundits supporting these campaigns are actively seeking a hostile takeover of the courts without explaining to these citizens the implications of such dishonesty. Indeed, Comer has detailed how groups like Freedom Trainers are allegedly seeking to enlist potential jurors while, according to the committee, instructing trainees not to “signal the agenda.”Instead of addressing the impact of politicizing our jurors, these groups are portraying nullification as "a powerful tool for ensuring fairness and justice.”

These efforts are coming at a time of full assault on our judicial system from the left. Leading Democrats are calling for the packing of the Supreme Court, to reverse decisions with which they disagree.

Every leading Democratic candidate for the 2028 presidential nomination has now thrown the court to the baying mob. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is only the most recent, declaring, "We should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power." From the trial jury to the Supreme Court, many on the left now seek to take control of institutions that have long been the rock of this Republic. If successful, justice will become merely an extension of politics.

What is so disconcerting is that there is no longer any pretense of principle. Law professors are demanding that pledges to pack the Court be used as litmus tests for politicians, and senators are calling for an instant liberal majority on the Court to carry out the "will of the people." Liberal professors have long demanded revolutionary change to "reclaim America from constitutionalism." The attack on the American jury may be the most insidious of these efforts. Our legal system invests average citizens with the power to do justice.

Every community plays a role in upholding the principles of blind justice. As with court-packing, jury nullification is a previously odious practice now being portrayed as a noble cause. It is part of the conditioning of voters to accept foundational changes to our constitutional system, to further a radical agenda harmful to the nation. The juror's role was indeed a "superpower," but not the one these professors and pundits are pushing. It was a power against prejudice and partisanship; it was the power of doing simple justice in a nation committed to the rule of law.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”