Demand Justice was founded in 2018 to make the federal courts a more salient issue for progressive voters and lawmakers. The organization advises and advocates for judicial nominees with backgrounds in progressive legal work, such as civil rights, labor law, and public defense, while also advocating for court reform policies that would expand the Supreme Court and lower courts, add judicial term limits, and create a code of judicial ethics for the Supreme Court.
Led by former political staffers Brian Fallon and Christopher Kang, Demand Justice has already made a name for itself by breaking liberal taboos on judges and spending big money on political ads. For too long, the left has lacked aggressive, politically-minded organizations committed to winning control of the courts, leading to a conservative takeover of the federal bench and Supreme Court. Demand Justice and a handful of other recently formed organizations are the most serious attempts progressives have made in decades to shift public opinion around judges and court reform. Blue Tent strongly recommends donating to Demand Justice, rating its work a high priority for progressive donors. (Explore our methodology.)
The following brief will answer key questions for prospective donors about Demand Justice’s vision, strategy, and organizational health. The answers below are drawn from independent research and reporting, including conversations with Demand Justice’s leadership and staff, as well as discussions with other progressive leaders focused on the courts and legal issues.
Is it a top leader in its space—or have the potential to be?
Yes. Despite being founded in 2018, Demand Justice has already become a leader among progressive organizations focused on the federal courts and legal issues; perhaps better than any other progressive group right now, it combines established Democratic know-how with an idealistic and often antagonistic posture. Demand Justice regularly organizes other groups into coalitions, including groups not primarily focused on the courts, such as Black Lives Matter and Sunrise Movement. The group has also shown its leadership instincts by consistently taking charge on more ambitious and unpopular proposals that later gain steam, such as expanding the Supreme Court or placing a moratorium on judicial nominees with backgrounds in prosecution or corporate law.
Does it have a persuasive theory of change and a realistic strategy?
Yes. Demand Justice’s reasoning for its work is straightforward and compelling: Republicans have rigged the federal judiciary at every level with an unprecedented number of extremist judges, posing a threat to any progressive policy that exists now or in the future. The only hope for overcoming this challenge is for Democrats to pursue the courts with equal fervor by adding seats to the federal courts and appointing a slate of progressive jurists. Demand Justice pursues these goals through a mixture of traditional inside the Beltway advocacy, grassroots organizing and campaigns, and advising lawyers with backgrounds in progressive legal work on the judicial nomination process.
Part of what distinguishes Demand Justice among other liberal groups focused on the courts is its willingness to approach the issue from an explicitly political perspective. Demand Justice raises and spends huge amounts of money on advertising, organizing and political messaging across both a 501(c)(3) and (c)(4). The group is even “sponsoring” an online media outlet, Balls and Strikes, publishing commentary critical of judicial decisions, legal journalism and Democrats’ approach to the courts. Institutions like these have long existed on the right, helping conservatives galvanize their base at key moments while dominating much of the public dialogue about courts and the law over time. Demand Justice is attempting to fill that void on the left, while advancing a progressive vision of the legal system.
Is there strong evidence of its impact?
As a young organization, Demand Justice’s impact is difficult to gauge. The Biden administration has echoed Demand Justice’s call for senators to recommend judicial nominees from underrepresented legal backgrounds, while Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court. Recent polling also shows that court expansion has found strong support with the vast majority of Democrats, an issue on which Demand Justice was an early leader.
But this increased focus on the courts among Democrats may be an entirely organic response to recent, unprecedented actions by Republicans, including blocking a Supreme Court nomination in 2016, the Brett Kavanaugh hearings in 2018, and the late-term confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett (and Democrats’ lackluster opposition) in 2020. It is also unclear whether the courts have truly become a more salient issue for progressives. Polls asking voters to identify issues by importance did not show a significant increase from 2016 to 2020 in the percentage of Democratic voters citing Supreme Court appointments as a “very important issue.”
It is still too early to fully assess Demand Justice’s impact, and it’s important to note that the effectiveness of any advocacy work is extremely difficult to measure on an individual level. However, Demand Justice has been a key part of a wider, positive trend among progressive groups focused on taking back the courts.
Does it have a plan to achieve future impact?
Yes. In addition to its “pipeline” work in recruiting and advising potential judicial nominees, Demand Justice has begun working to build grassroots support among Democratic voters for more aggressive action on the courts. These two projects will give progressives a strong pool of candidates for judicial nominations, while building wider levels of support for later judicial battles or court reform legislation. Demand Justice also plans to continue using digital campaigns and advertising to keep beating the drum for progressives to maintain focus on the courts and to spend extensively on ads during any future Supreme Court nomination.
In early September, Demand Justice launched a $1.5 million grassroots campaign aimed at convincing Democrats to support Supreme Court expansion, recruiting an army of volunteers and hiring new staff members for the project. Executive director Brian Fallon told HuffPost that the new project was meant as a long-term investment, and that such efforts would be necessary to persuade Democratic lawmakers to embrace court expansion.
As mentioned above, Demand Justice is also sponsoring a new online publication, Balls and Strikes, edited by journalist Jay Willis. The site describes its mission as seeking to “hold courts, judges, and members of the legal profession accountable for their failures to fulfill their professed commitment to the cause of justice, and to facilitate some long-overdue conversations about how to make the legal system better, or at the very least, marginally less worse.”
Contributors listed on the site include former New York Times editorial board member Adam Cohen; Josie Duffy-Rice, the lawyer, journalist and former president of The Appeal; and the three hosts of the popular “5-4” legal podcast, among others. The site will also host a number of databases, tracking the political makeup of circuit courts, the progress of Biden administration promises on judges and the status of nominations in the senate.
Does it have strong leadership and governance?
Yes. Demand Justice’s co-founders, Brian Fallon and Christopher Kang, are both knowledgeable and highly experienced. Fallon previously served as national press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016, as director of public affairs for the Department of Justice, and as a top aide to now Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Kang previously worked in the Obama White House on judicial nominations, as well as for Sen. Dick Durbin, now the Senate Judiciary Committee’s chairman. Both are seen positively by leaders in peer organizations, per background discussions with Blue Tent.
Other key leaders on staff include: senior advisor for engagement and outreach Tamara Brummer, a longtime labor union staffer who previously worked for the SEIU, AFL-CIO and the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades; chief operating officer Jen Dansereau, a former Democratic staffer who most recently worked for the National Turkey Federation; and Becky Bond, the political operative and founder of Real Justice PAC, who will be working with Demand Justice on their court expansion campaign.
For the vast majority of its existence, Demand Justice has operated as two fiscally sponsored projects, with Sixteen Thirty Fund sponsoring its (c)(3) work and New Venture Fund sponsoring their (c)(4) work. Demand Justice spun off into independent organizations in the Summer of 2021, forming boards of directors for both groups for the first time. Demand Justice’s (c)(3) board includes Fallon and Kang, along with 2020 Bernie Sanders Presidential campaign manager Faiz Shakir; former NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue; and 51 for 51 campaign manager Stasha Rhodes. The (c)(4) board also includes Fallon and Kang, plus Democratic political operative and author Adam Jentleson; Hub Project founder and executive director Arkadi Gerney; Climate Power executive director and former Apple corporate communications director Lori Lodes; and journalist and lawyer Elie Mystal.
Is it diverse and culturally competent?
According to internal data shared with Blue Tent as of May 2021, Demand Justice’s 16-person staff is 62% women and 43% BIPOC, while the organization’s four-person leadership team is half women and half BIPOC. Demand Justice told Blue Tent that the organization has engaged consulting firm Full Circle Strategies for “an in-depth anti-racism/DEI training process” that is ongoing. Demand Justice also regularly works in coalition with civil rights and racial justice groups. Examples of their work centering DEI include highlighting the racially disparate impact of the Senate’s “blue slip” process, as well as ad campaigns stressing the racial justice implications of Supreme Court voting rights cases. Demand Justice also pointed to their advocacy for a more diverse judiciary, including their efforts to seed She Will Rise, a group focused on the elevation of the first Black woman to the Supreme Court.
Is its financial house in order?
As fiscally sponsored projects until very recently, Demand Justice has not been required to prepare individual IRS 990 forms, which would show the organization’s finances in more detail. The organization declined to share any financial details with Blue Tent, aside from citing one publicly known funder (Open Society Foundations) and stating that the organization receives a mixture of institutional, foundation and grassroots donations. The organization has regularly boasted of spending seven figures or more on projects and ad campaigns. Until Demand Justice shares its internal numbers, Blue Tent is unable to determine its financial health.
Is it respected by its peers?
Yes. In conversations with other nonprofit leaders and staffers focused on the courts, Demand Justice and its leadership were cited as a positive example of a group working for a more progressive judiciary. This praise for Demand Justice was shared by both leaders of established liberal groups, like American Constitution Society president Russ Feingold, as well younger, more leftwing leaders, such as People’s Parity Project executive director Molly Coleman.
Does it collaborate well with other organizations and have strong partnerships?
Yes. Demand Justice regularly works with organizations across the progressive landscape, including grassroots groups like Sunrise Movement and Black Lives Matter, traditional civil rights groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and other up-and-coming, more aggressive court reform groups, like People’s Parity Project and Take Back the Court. Demand Justice joins with these groups on coalition letters, organizing calls, and advocacy work.
Does it have the support of key funders?
Open Society Foundations has awarded two grants to Demand Justice (through Sixteen Thirty Fund, its former fiscal sponsor), including a one-year, $750,000 grant in 2019. Demand Justice would not share the names of any other funders with Blue Tent.
Conclusion
Demand Justice is one of the most exciting new progressive organizations to form in recent years, and its aggressive advocacy and lobbying may be highly influential on future judicial battles, including any nomination to the Supreme Court. But the organization is also invested in the long game, spending significant time and resources on increasing the saliency of courts to progressive voters, and advising a pipeline of potential judicial nominees.
While Demand Justice is still finding its footing in terms of both governance and financials, the organization has shown immense promise. Demand Justice combines pragmatism with strong progressive ideals, pushing for more ambitious structural changes to the courts in an effective manner. The group has also displayed an ability to quickly marshall funds and disperse them in moments of need, something that has been sorely lacking among progressives focused on the courts. For these reasons, Blue Tent strongly recommends donating to Demand Justice, and considers its work and the specific issue of court reform and judicial appointments a high priority for progressive donors. (Explore our methodology.)