A Book Talk with Jessica Pishko

The figure of the American sheriff has loomed large in popular imagination, though given the outsize jurisdiction sheriffs have over people’s lives, the office of sheriffs remains a gravely under-examined institution. In recent years, there’s been a revival of “constitutional sheriffs,” who assert that their authority supersedes that of legislatures, courts, and even the president. Moreover, they are embraced by far-right militia groups and white nationalists.

How did a group of law enforcement officers decide they were “above the law?” What are the stakes for local and national politics and for America as a democracy?

Independent journalist and lawyer Jessica Pishko takes us to the roots of why sheriffs have become a flashpoint in our current political landscape and for the far-right.

This event was moderated by Program on Extremism Research Fellow Luke Baumgartner.

On October 15, 2024, the Program on Extremism (PoE) at The George Washington University hosted “A Book Talk with Jessica Pishko.” Independent journalist, lawyer, and author of “The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy,” Jessica Pishko, joined PoE Research Fellow Luke Baumgartner to discuss the constitutional sheriff movement.

Pishko opened the conversation by sharing what inspired her book. Growing up in Texas, she initially viewed sheriffs through a mythic lens. Her perspective shifted when she began working in the criminal justice system and realized sheriffs, unlike most law enforcement officials, are elected and wield broad authority over both criminal and civil matters. Her interest deepened during the COVID-19 pandemic, when some sheriffs refused to enforce public health mandates. This led her to investigate the constitutional sheriff movement, a far-right movement that claims sheriffs hold ultimate constitutional authority and can selectively enforce laws.

She described attending a “Patriotic Social Gathering” in Battle Mountain, Nevada—a pro-law enforcement event that illustrated the fusion of the constitutional sheriff movement with MAGA ideology. As Pishko noted, this convergence promotes libertarian values, gun rights, religious traditionalism, and resistance to government oversight.

Pishko also traced the historical roots of the sheriff's role. Originating as tax collectors in Anglo-Saxon England, sheriffs in the U.S. evolved into elected officials during westward expansion. Many early sheriffs were former military officers, contributing to their quasi-military image. The modern constitutional sheriff movement gained traction through figures like former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack. In the 1990s, the NRA recruited Mack to challenge the Brady Bill, a case he ultimately won in the Supreme Court. This victory bolstered his credibility in anti-federalist circles. Pishko also linked today’s movement to older far-right ideologies, such as Posse Comitatus, which promoted citizen militias and white nationalist beliefs.

Addressing immigration, Pishko highlighted how sheriffs often cooperate with ICE and engage in border militia activities. Organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) have enlisted sheriffs to support anti-immigrant policies. She emphasized sheriffs’ significant role in migrant detention as they control county jails, which often operate under harsh, unregulated conditions.

During the Q&A, Pishko observed that many sheriffs consume far-right media and interpret criticism as validation. She stressed the need for improved law enforcement training, stronger civilian oversight, and the election of vetted candidates. She concluded that while the constitutional sheriff movement poses serious threats to democratic norms, it can—and should—be regulated like any other public office.