“The Constitution Doesn’t Apply Here”: The Most Dangerous Lie in America’s Courtrooms
Based on commentary and legal research by Bruce Eden.
“The Constitution doesn’t apply in my courtroom.”
Those words, uttered by a New Jersey family court judge on the record, should send chills down the spine of every American. And yet, they are not rare. They echo across courtrooms in all 50 states—particularly in family, probate, and even criminal courtrooms where judges act as if their black robes grant them immunity from the very foundation of American law.
These judges are wrong. Not just morally, but constitutionally. And it’s time we called out the lie for what it is: state-sponsored tyranny hiding behind the veil of procedure.
The Lie of “Equity Courts” and the Erosion of Rights
In family court, we are often told: “This isn’t a court of law—it’s a court of equity.” The implication is that constitutional protections like due process, equal protection, and fundamental parental rights don’t apply here. But that’s not how the law works. Not in a constitutional republic.
The 14th Amendment guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law—and that protection extends to all branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial.
This isn’t speculation. It’s the consistent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court for over a century. In Ex Parte Virginia (1880), the Court made it crystal clear:
“A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way.”
In other words: if a judge, acting in their official capacity, strips you of your rights, that is state action. And that means the Constitution applies.
Shelley v. Kraemer: The Blueprint for Fighting Judicial Tyranny
If you’ve never heard of the 1948 Supreme Court case Shelley v. Kraemer, it’s time to learn. This case involved racially restrictive housing covenants, but the legal question it raised applies directly to today’s family court crisis:
Is judicial enforcement of a private dispute considered “state action” under the 14th Amendment?
The answer: Yes. Absolutely. Unquestionably.
The Court ruled that even if a case arises from a private agreement, once a judge enforces it, the state is involved. And when the state is involved, constitutional protections must apply.
This directly rebuts the modern family court dodge that claims, “This is just a private dispute between parents. We don’t need to apply constitutional scrutiny.”
That is judicial malpractice. And it’s happening every single day.
No-Fault Divorce, High-Conflict Courtrooms, and Government Overreach
No-fault divorce was supposed to make things simpler. The goal was to allow both parties to walk away without blame, divide property, and move on peacefully. Instead, family courts have devolved into arenas of accusation, character assassination, and endless litigation.
Why?
Because courts profit from conflict. The more hearings, motions, mediations, and custody evaluations you go through, the more money the system makes. And the more power judges get to exercise—unchecked and unchallenged.
When judges rule on property, parenting time, and child support without respecting constitutional rights, they are no longer neutral arbitrators. They are state actors imposing government will on private families, often based on incomplete evidence, biased evaluations, or outright lies.
Parental Rights Are Individual Rights
Let’s be clear: your right to raise your child is a fundamental constitutional right. It does not disappear when you get divorced. It does not vanish because another parent files a motion. And it certainly is not conditional on whether a judge likes your personality.
As the Court held in Twining v. New Jersey (1908):
“The judicial act of the highest court of the State, in authoritatively construing and enforcing its laws, is the act of the State.”
This means that when a judge takes away your parental rights without due process, the state is violating the Constitution.
Yet every day, parents are told that they must prove they are “fit” while the other parent is presumed to be right. Or worse, they’re told that fighting for their child is “hostile,” “high-conflict,” or “inappropriate.” These arbitrary designations deny millions of parents their rights under the false guise of “best interest of the child”—a standard that has no fixed definition and is ripe for abuse.
Equity Courts Are Not Above the Constitution
Some judges try to excuse their actions by claiming, “This is a court of equity, not a court of law,” as if that magically suspends the Constitution. But the U.S. Constitution makes no such distinction when it comes to the limits of judicial power.
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states clearly:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”
This means judges do not hold their seats unconditionally—they serve only as long as their conduct remains lawful and ethical. When judges violate constitutional rights under the false pretense of “equity,” they are acting outside of that good behavior requirement.
Article III, Section 2 makes it even clearer:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States…”
In other words, even equity courts—including family, probate, and contract courts—are fully bound by the Constitution. There is no carveout, no footnote, no escape clause.
If a judge claims otherwise, they can and should be subject to recusal or removal for incompetence, bias, actual or apparent impropriety, fraud, misconduct, or conspiracy to violate rights. Judges who openly deny the Constitution’s reach are not simply mistaken—they are violating their oath of office.
Equity courts may use different procedures than criminal or civil courts, but they are not a lawless zone. The Constitution governs all judicial power in the United States—period.
It’s Time to Shatter the Excuses
Let’s demolish the core myth: Judges are not immune from the Constitution.
As the Supreme Court ruled in Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill (1930):
“The federal guaranty of due process extends to state action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative branch of government.”
And in The Civil Rights Cases (1883):
“The Amendment makes void ‘State action of every kind’ which is inconsistent with the guaranties therein contained.”
These rulings leave no room for interpretation. If your rights are violated in family court—by a judge, under color of state law—it is a constitutional violation.
So What Now?
Start calling it what it is: judicial tyranny.
Start naming it: state action under color of law.
And start fighting back with the law on your side. The very documents judges claim don’t apply to you were written specifically to protect you from them.
We must demand judicial accountability at every level—family, probate, civil, criminal. No courtroom should be allowed to operate outside the rule of law. And no judge who utters the phrase “the Constitution doesn’t apply here” should be allowed to wear a robe another day.
It’s Time for a Reckoning
The Constitution is not optional. It is not a suggestion. It is not suspended at the door of family court.
It’s time for parents, advocates, and citizens to remind the judiciary who they work for—and what they swore to uphold.
Because justice without the Constitution is not justice at all.
Sources & Legal Citations:
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880)
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (1930)
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 (1880)
Author’s Note:
Special thanks to Bruce Eden whose research, caselaw review, and personal insight helped shape the foundation of this article. Your work continues to educate and inspire those fighting for transparency and reform.
Bruce is the Director of Dads Against Discrimination (DADS)--NJ & NY.
Constitutional law and Family law paralegal & legal technician; 40 years experience in family courts in various states, doing motions, orders to show cause, state civil actions, appeals, federal complaints/mandamus/habeas corpus/removal actions/appeals.
Divorce Reform activist & advocate.
Fathers' Rights activist & advocate.
💡 Like this article? Want to help me keep exposing the truth?
I’m an independent writer, father, and advocate doing this work without backing from big media or corporate sponsors. If you believe in what I’m writing and want to help me keep going, consider making a small donation. Every bit helps fuel future stories, investigations, and the fight for real justice.
Thank you for standing with me.
Don't forget the following:
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."
Even equity courts (e.g., family courts, probate courts, general equity (contracts, injunctions, etc.)) are under the purview of and controlled by the U.S. Constitution. No Judge can say that family courts are equity courts and that the Constitution doesn't apply in equity. If a Judge says that it does, the Judge can be recused for incompetence, bias, appearance of impropriety, actual impropriety, deception, fraud, official misconduct, conspiracy to violate rights, pattern of official misconduct, etc.
They have enshrined this tyranny into law so if you say anything about it, you are put in jail yourself to silence you! For instance; we did away with Debtor’s prison many long years ago, but a man who doesn’t pay mommy support ransom is said to ‘go against a court order’. And that is a jailable offense. It’s not the money you see?
The only way to fix this insanity is to get everybody together, toxic feminists and fathers, but as we all know, that has never happened and never will happen. Best thing to do is never get involved with women in the first place. In this way, you starve out beast; the courts will close up shop because there are no divorces in which they can steal money from. We can start by repealing no fault divorce that that’s where it all went wrong. Thousands of toxic feminist would not get divorced if there was no fault anymore. Where there is incentive for “cash and prizes” there will always be the corruption. Stop it there. But alas, men simply refuse to stand up for themselves. And so the big money wheel continues to turn-