The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy

by Jessica Pishko

A leading authority on sheriffs investigates the impunity with which they police their communities, alongside the troubling role they play in American life, law enforcement, and, increasingly, national politics.

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. Locally elected, largely unaccountable, and difficult to remove, the country’s over three thousand sheriffs, mostly white men, wield immense power—making arrests, running county jails, enforcing evictions and immigration laws—with a quarter of all U.S. law enforcement officers reporting to them. 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. They’ve protested federal mask and vaccine mandates and gun regulations, railed against police reforms, and, ultimately, declared themselves election police, with many endorsing the “Big Lie” of a stolen presidential election. They are embraced by far-right militia groups, white nationalists, the Claremont Institute, and former president Donald Trump, who sees them as allies in mass deportation and border policing.

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

Blending investigative reporting, historical research, and political analysis, author Jessica Pishko takes us to the roots of why sheriffs have become a flashpoint in the current politics of toxic masculinity, guns, white supremacy, and rural resentment, and uncovers how sheriffs have effectively evaded accountability since the nation’s founding.

A must-read for fans of Michelle Alexander, Gilbert King, Elizabeth Hinton, and Kathleen Belew.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Audiobook, True Crime, Crime, Law

480 pages, Hardcover

Published September 17, 2024

About the author

Jessica Pishko is a journalist and lawyer with a JD from Harvard Law School and an MFA from Columbia University. She has been reporting on the criminal legal system for a decade, with a focus on the political power of sheriffs since 2016. In addition to her newsletter, Posse Comitatus, her writings have been featured in The New York Times, Politico, Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, The Appeal, Slate, and Democracy Docket. She has been awarded journalism fellowships from the Pulitzer Center and Type Investigations and was a 2022 New America Fellow. A longtime Texas resident, she currently lives with her family in North Carolina.

Reviews

[ancientreader]

right-wingers here and on netgalley reeeaaaallly have their undies in a bunch over this one, so how can i resist?????

[Jill Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is going to be one of those books I recommend to absolutely everyone I know. Despite its length (Libby says it took me more than 6 hours to read) it is compelling enough that I read huge chunks of it at a time. It is also meticulously researched, with almost 35% of the text being source citations. I was alternately horrified and riveted, and often both at the same time. If you live in America, you need to read this.

[Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highest Law in the Land is a fascinating look at the role of sheriffs in American society, politics, and upholding white supremacy. I was especially interested in the section about the constitutional sheriff movement and their ties to far right militia groups and white nationalists. I was pleasantly surprised Pishko touched on the christian identity movement (it's basically white supremacist scientology but dial up the wackiness) and its founders' roles in influencing the constitutional sheriff movement. Chapter 9 was one of the strongest chapters that goes to the, horrific, historical roots of the role of sheriff in an impressively thorough way that would make Kathleen Belew proud. I highly recommend picking up this very impressive book.

[Monica · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to say that this book was written from a very liberal viewpoint. I am sure their are good sheriff's out there. It seems to me Pishko went and found the furtherest right-wing Republican sheriffs she could. One thing that got me was that at the end, she said we should do away with sheriffs. I guess she's never lived in a rural community, where sometimes they are the only law enforcement you can depend on.

It took me 2 months to read this. I could only take it in small doses. I am a conservative, not right-wing, just plain old conservative. I had to take a break from her rhetoric every once in a while. You could tell she doesn't care for Trump, who most of the sheriffs she talked about support and like. A book I thought was going to be about Sheriff's and how they have changed through the years ended up to me as a political book. You may like it, but I just didn't enjoy it. Just my opinion and that's what's great about books. Each book hits each person differently.

I won this through a Goodreads Giveaway. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

😊Happy Reading😊

#Goodreads #goodreadsgiveaway #jessicapishko #thehighestlawintheland

[John Schorg · Rating 2 out of 5]

The idea of studying the abuses of authority by local law enforcement officials is a worthy one, but not the way it's portrayed here. The author seems bound and determined to portray county sheriffs as drunk with power by challenging voting results and Covid restrictions, based on some rather unique interpretations of the Constitution. As a result, the author recommends getting rid of county sheriffs entirely. There is little consideration of how these officials handle their duties of public safety, only about their links to far-right fringe movements. Worst of all, the author incessantly hammers the few points she makes in page after page. Irritating doesn't begin to describe it. There should be a thoughtful book about the changes in law enforcement through the years. This isn't it.

[Rachael K · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a day to finish this book lol. This was long and I would not have gotten through it if I didn’t listen to it. It’s well-researched. There was plenty I didn’t know about how sheriffs’ departments operate. The historic parts about formations of departments were most interesting to me. The author focused so much on a few well known/high profile sheriffs, (Arpaio, Mack, Lamb) as well as Trump, which makes sense to support the author’s claim about the threat to democracy but it was just a lot of recent news that I feel I’ve read a lot about the past 4 years.

[Alex · Rating 1 out of 5]

I should have loved this book. Right wing extremism is one of my favorite topics and I think that constitutional sheriffs and sovereign citizens are under reported on. I gave up on this book 2/3 of the way through when the author dismissed Kathleen Belew's 'Bring the War Home' and then misrepresented then MIAC report incident within a few pages of each other. I'd been considering giving up on it for most of the book because, while the author mentions a lot of race theory, it doesn't seem like she actually understood what she read. She never makes any connections or does any analysis using the theories she mentions. She is deeply credulous of the figures she talks to while also seeming to have an incongruent level of disgust for them, which seems to be based on just being vaguely liberal, rather than actually noticing the heinous White supremacist dog whistles in her subjects' rhetoric.

I think the thing that pissed me off the most is when she referenced Unite the Right perpetrators as chanting "you will not replace us." It's like really Pishko, is that the chant that everyone remembers from Charlottesville? Are you sure they weren't saying anything a little more relevant to your reporting on right wing extremism?

Also, this book is remarkably badly organized. Bad organization is unfortunately common for contemporary nonfiction, but this book went above and beyond. Not only are the sections badly organized but the content within the sections are badly organized. It is sooooo repetitive. I think the amount of content original content could fit in an Atlantic article, not even a New Yorker article.

The book didn't know what it wanted to be. There are plenty of good books where journalists tell the story of their experience reporting on something, and this book occasionally made reference to those experiences, but it wasn't that style of book. It also wasn't an academic or even mildly analytical book. There are so many interesting directions this book could have gone. The author skimmed the surface of many important and under reported on topics, but didn't do any of them justice, instead she just filled the pages with the same repetitive stories of uncritically told encounters with attention seeking seeking bigots. I guess I'm glad she didn't try to go deeper into any of the under reported topics because I don't think she is capable of doing them justice.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A shocking exposé on how many sheriffs across the country have lurched towards a far-right ideology that is not only at odds with their core mission of public safety, but is even counter-productive to it. Some of Pishko’s reporting is downright chilling. Clearly, the office of Sheriff needs to be completely overhauled, though I am hesitant to embrace her call to abolish it entirely. Nonetheless, the marriage of sheriffs with far-right ideology is incredibly dangerous and should be opposed.

[Paul O'Donnell · Rating 2 out of 5]

The ACAB crowd realizes Sheriff's offices and rural areas exist. Maybe I'm biased because I grew up in an area with a corrupt sheriff's department with little regard for actual law enforcement, but nothing here seems particularly new to me. The entanglement between some sheriff's and the Conservative extremists also isn't a major shock. I suppose there's some value in reminding people that there's more to the police in America than just "The Police" but by and large that's the only value I see in this book. As a side note the author seems concerned that sheriff's departments have rifles while simultaneously pointing out that many mass shooters use rifles while seeming oblivious to the connection she just made.

[Savannah Elmore · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the conclusion of the book, "While a complete history of law enforcement and policing is beyond the scope of this book, my work has made it clear that the sheriff as an institution represents an imagined history, a lost cause that did not ever exist. We should not have active law enforcement, law enforcement that costs money and extinguishes human lives, who are simply part of a fairy tale that white Americans like to tell themselves."

[Leslie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Folks, we have a problem. Sheriffs. Everyone should read this book.

[Savannah Simms · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great look at the unmitigated power and influence of sheriffs in America. I have read several books about modern policing, but few have dedicated much time to investigating solely sheriffs. So I learned a lot!

Honestly, it’s terrifying how unchecked these people are and the havoc they wreak on jails across the country. The fact that they can accept donations from local businesses like gun stores that they then turn around and shield from following regulatory laws is insane. And they aren’t allowed to campaign in uniform, but can announce their candidacy wearing their uniform (which can be whatever they want it to be btw!!). As well as their widespread adoration for westerns/cowboy aesthetics. Crazy.

I also really appreciated the timing of this book. It covers Jan 6, the rise of militia movements, COVID, and the uprising following the murder of George Floyd.

This is mandatory reading for any abolitionist and I’m going to purchase a physical copy to keep on my shelf.

[Kellyn Dove · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over four stars

I had very little knowledge of anything involving sheriffs, but I did know trump is very popular with them

This was so helpful in explaining why sheriffs are way more susceptible to far right beliefs, how they hold onto power and how their power is unchecked, and how they uphold white supremacy. From jails to immigration to Covid denying, sheriffs have so much power and authority that dictate a lot of rural areas and how they operate.

It’s no wonder trump loves sheriffs and they love him, the sheriffs office isn’t beholden to much if any oversight.

A lot of the information did overlap a ton, so I sometimes had my mind wandering when it shouldn’t but otherwise this was a great deep dive into this topic and I feel way more informed. I feel more informed, which is exactly how you should feel after reading a nonfiction book

[Nicole Finch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another excellent entry in the category of "nonfiction that makes me mad." This book started off with a bang with Mormons in chapter 1, unpasteurized milk in chapter 2, and Lee Atwater in chapter 3. You get the idea. The county sheriff is yet another American institution for which there can be no reform, only abolition. When you ask why anything in the USA is so awful, the answer is always, always racism, and so it is for sheriffs, too. Well researched, well reported, well written, very readable (or listenable). I took a lot of notes and copied a lot of quotations. It was really interesting, and I learned a lot about something I'd never paid much attention to previously. It helped me put a lot into perspective.

A note on format: The audiobook narrator, Nan McNamara, was very good. The endnotes were, as they always are these days, utterly exasperating.

[Stephen Cooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Multiple Washington mentions (derogatory) :/

[Cole Lorimer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I largely agree with the author and still think this was way too heavy handed. A more nuanced or even remotely balanced review would be far more effective. There's no need for "both sides" but this overcorrects.

[K. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was interesting, though not outstanding. The conclusion, which argues that the institution of sheriff (actually all policing) should be abolished, surprised me. Because I don't think her reporting warrants such a strong response- maybe other evidence does, but it wasn't in the scope of this book.

However, I learned some new things from the author's work. I wasn't paying much attention to library news in 2019, so I missed the case of the librarian being pilloried and harassed by law enforcement for making a pro BLM statement. (For the record, I actually don't think it's a library's place to support or denounce a political movement, but the fact that law enforcement got involved and took it as a personal insult is nuts.)

I think many attempts to understand the “other side” suffer from a lack of working knowledge of what those people’s worlds actually look like on a day to day basis. For example, I didn’t fully understand the distinction between police officers and sheriffs- which is true of many liberals, I suspect- and this was a hole in my understanding that I didn’t even realize existed. But you can be sure that people who ally themselves with law enforcement understand it, and exploit its possibilities.

When disgust toward political opponents allows you to shut out information about what they believe, you dull your sense of how their beliefs differ from yours and why you think as you do.

Tangentially related thought I've been stuck on lately- with institutions like the IRS or public schools, conservative minded people doubt whether the current budget is being well spent in the first place and don't think the leaders can be trusted to be competent, so it'll all be a waste. To me, starving these important agencies of money of course dooms them to poor performance, justifying further budget cuts, and this becomes a spiral down the drain. And on the other hand, you have liberals like myself who generally believe in funding police less- but what if that tactic dooms law enforcement agencies to being backwaters that can't attract good talented employees? Could funding for something like a year long training program improve the quality of new officers? I know it's tempting to say “police would just spend extra funding on bullshit,” but some people say the same of their local schools and I disagree, so…

[Marc Motter · Rating 3 out of 5]

A wide-ranging journalistic account of the constitutional sheriff movement as it exists in the present and for the last decade. My two biggest critiques of this book are 1) a haphazard organization style (perhaps a consequence of the author's background as a journalist) is based on topic (rather than argument or chronology) makes the book rambling, repetitive, and without any sort of compelling takeaway; and 2) a relative lack of analysis of historical sheriffs means Pishko fails to satisfactorily really explain how the constitutional sheriff movement developed.

I would have added 3) lack of any persuasive or thoughtful arguments about what to do about the rising influence of constitutional sheriffs, though this was mediated in part by the conclusion, which advanced a high level argument for sheriff abolition. Though I guess I am not totally surprised that this is Pishko's takeaway, I could also see a version of this book with a much more reform-minded closing argument, echoing the utterly unsatisfactory "elect progressive sheriffs" argument put forth in the final chapters.

Overall, this book offered a new way to think about how far right politics are being shaped by local sheriffs, but did not offer any large frame shifts or novel arguments, which I would have appreciated. I also found Pishko's prose and proofing relatively unpolished. 3.3/5

[Delaney Nash · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fine book, kind of "baby's first revolutionary analysis" which isn't necessarily a bad thing because it has its use cases. It falls flat in my eyes showing the over arching connection of policing and white supremacy. I was hoping for more. I think anyone politically active in the last ten years would already know most of this.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really right at 2.5, but I'm bumping down, albeit reserving the right to come back and bump back up.

First, Pishko is preaching to the converted, overall, per the non-nutter 2-star reviewer. That said, that's with an asterisk which I'll get to at the end.

Second, without claiming to know every detail of every movement within the constitutional sheriffs' world, I've long known the big picture, so nothing new here. In addition, I'd read two reviews of the book already, one at Capital and Main and the other at the Texas Observer, since I live in Tex-ass. With that said?

I'm not converted on her "ergo" — the elimination of sheriffs.

Getting rid of ELECTING sheriffs? Hellz yes and I've said that for more than a decade, and in newspaper columns. We don't elect city police chiefs, we don't elect state directors of public safety, and we don't elect the head of the FBI, ATF, etc. Why should we elect sheriffs today? (That said, I know why, and with generally good reason, sheriffs were elected a century and more ago, and you won't find that in Pishko's book.) I've also said that, here in Tex-ass, we ought to get rid of the office of constable in every county and transfer constabular functions to that county's sheriff's office.

But, we need sheriff's-level policing. State directors of public safety, especially in plains and Western states with large counties, don't want to take that over, either.

So keep sheriffs. Just don't elect them. (And, beyond the constitutional sheriffs movement, there's plenty of other reason to remove politics from sheriff's offices, and, as a newspaper editor, I've seen and heard some of that personally.)

For other reasons, I disagree on abolishing jails. I agree on abolishing private prison contractors. I agree with making it easier for many people who have been arrested, mainly non-violent detainees, to bond out more easily. I agree with spending more money on jailer pay and total jailers, and also having somebody besides the sheriff run them. But, not every detainee should bond out easily. And, jails are also needed for more severe non-felony convictions. (I am talking specifically about jails, not prisons.)

And now, that asterisk. It comes from the conclusion, where Pishko goes off on mass incarceration, sheriffs and immigration and even Roe.

She makes clear she's a Democrat.

I'm a non-duopoly leftist, so I'm going to speak from her left.

Clinton, Obama and Biden, all in their first two years in office, had the opportunity of doing something in terms of federal protection for abortion, beyond EMTALA, which we've seen how post-Dobbs courts treat. They didn't. And, in any case, that has ZERO to do with sheriff's offices.

Mass incarceration? It is a problem. And national and state Democrats as well as Republicans, have largely supported the War on Drugs that is a primary fueler of it. Presidents of both parties have supported militarization of city police, county sheriffs and state departments of public safety all alike, as discussed in a book like Radley Balko's "The Rise of the Warrior Cop." (Balko has his own problems as an extreme libertarian, like wanting to entirely get rid of DWI laws; that's part of why I said "a book like.")

As for getting rid of policing in general, as proposed by Alex Vitale, who blurbs this book and with whom Pishko seems to half agree or more? No, policing doesn't have roots in colonialism, slavery and the rise of industrialization. I addressed that in refuting policing myths of libertarians and the New Left, noting that "the Shah's eyes and ears" of the Achaemenid Empire were cops. (Balko, unsurprisingly, is among those who gets this totally wrong.) Likewise, in writing about what I already knew about the book a month or so ago, I said Plato's archons were cops, or at least halfway so.

Immigration? Dear Leader (that would be Barack Obama) practiced family separation at the border before Trump did. Biden continued Trump's Article 42 by other means, namely tech-neoliberal ones.

Related? Presidents of both parties have continued government deals with private prison contractors on housing detained immigrants.

[Adam DeBord · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sheriffs have been romanticized in America. They have been portrayed in movies and TV shows and books as a valiant law man, upholding the greatest virtues, and chosen by his community to defend that community from a nefarious violent threat. This was seen most frequently in the western genre of movies. The truth is far from as pleasant. It is even less pleasant in the modern era of policing and sheriffs.

Sheriffs, unlike their municipal or state police counterparts, are elected, not appointed. This means that they are given far freer rein to enact the policies of state sanctioned violence. An appointed chief of police or chief state trooper can be fired by the elected body or executive that appointed them, but a sheriff was elected. This means that a sheriff is given a special place to exert executive authority throughout whatever county that elected them. The sheriff will not risk losing their position until at least the next election.

This book shows how sheriffs act as law enforcement and also as executive authority in a county. The sheriff is both a law enforcement officer and a politician. The sheriff doesn’t just oversee the sheriff’s department in whatever county they operate, the sheriff also oversees the jail and other county level administrative tasks.

Unlike a police chief, a sheriff is given free rein to endorse political candidates and causes and use the office explicitly in their endorsement. This demonstrates how a sheriff can put their politics into all of their behavior.

She shows the corruption and lawlessness that makes up the modern sheriff, and largely that practice always existed. The sheriff controls the jail which primarily houses people not convicted of any crime and largely are too poor to post bail for pretrial release. These people are forced to live in squalor where disease, violence, and drugs are a constant. Sheriffs often pride themselves in their creativity with how poorly they can treat their inmates. The sheriffs also enjoy cutting costs in the food given to inmates, knowing they can pocket the difference and the money they enjoy making through convict leasing. With the large number of unconvicted people awaiting trial it is an interesting question regarding this practice’s constitutionality.

The author discusses various extremist causes that either are granted a blind eye from sheriffs or even full throated endorsement. She discusses how sheriffs actively engage in the oppression and violence of marginalized people. She gives an interesting anecdote where a sheriff states how a sheriff would not have arrested or persecuted Rosa Parks in the famous bus incident. This ignores how southern sheriffs were explicitly behind the attack dogs and fire hoses imposing violence on black protesters. Sheriffs were also behind much of the displacement and forced evacuation of indigenous peoples as the US made its westward move and began its land grabs.

The sheriffs she observed also heavily involve themselves in immigration practices. They lease out their jails to ICE. They provide deputies to assist in ICE raids. They engage in gross “show me your papers” policies.

The author also goes on to describe the way sheriffs embolden militia and far right extremist organizations. They turn a blind eye to their activities or even offer full throated endorsements. They perpetuate disproven and unfounded conspiracy theories. They do nothing but exacerbate political violence and encourage its perpetrators. They use their office in this act and face no consequences when discovered.

The biggest term sheriffs use to describe their behavior is the “constitutional sheriff.” The author describes how (despite not appearing anywhere in the constitution) the office of sheriff is specially tasked with interpretation and enforcement of the law according to the constitution. They use this stance to describe themselves as the highest law in the land. They go on to violate orders from governmental executives from (democratic) presidents to governors to regulatory agencies. They even disobey judicial orders. The sheriff, in taking the stance that they are the true interpreters of the law end up leading to the law’s breakdown and loss of meaning.

[MackGetsLit · Rating 3 out of 5]

I work, and have worked, closely alongside local, county, state, and even at times federal law enforcement for over a decade. I am, however, not law enforcement. I have witnessed several interactions with victims of abuse, sexual assault, and substance abuse in which the deputies have gone above and beyond to ensure people felt comfortable and safe. I live in a very rural county that operates on tight budgets and short staffed agencies. My county has a large population of migrant workers and immigrant families, as farming is the main industry. I do not see the same issues that are cited in the book, but I am also not in a southern border county, just a Northern border one. The agencies investigated in this book certainly do not represent all rural sheriffs, and I wish rural departments that are more representative of mine, were also discussed. The barriers they encounter in serving the public and how they view their power and jurisdiction in the county, state and federal level would be an informative viewpoint. Our local jail has not had any major scandals or charges of impropriety, so again, can’t relate. I often feel rural communities are not fairly represented by outsiders and lumped together as uneducated racist white supremacists, and that may very well be true for some, but it is certainly not true of all. I do not think people from outside our communities know what our communities need, or how best to solve the issues we have. Instead, sheriff’s autonomy could be used as the conduit between agencies and have some flexibility where other agency’s hands are tied.
I never knew the significant difference between different agencies and figured it was just jurisdictional differences. I just thought they wore different outfits and drove in different places. 🤷🏼‍♀️
The term Constitutional Sheriff is not something that I have come across, but I also don’t interact much with openly far right white supremacist groups. That being said, that doesn’t mean I don’t interact with individuals who may belong to these groups secretly, as I have heard many of the ideologies mentioned in this book from their mouths. I will say, any one person possessing that power, is frightening and dangerous.
I do think this book is better served to be presented as an investigative look on how white supremacist groups have infiltrated sheriff departments, and how that impacts citizens.

[Kaitlyn Novotny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every book that brings facts to the fore and offers a revolutionary way of thinking about modern issues deserves 5-stars in my opinion. This work is so well-organized and researched, it follows a natural progression from the original "shire-reeve" (shire/administrative district or county + chief official/reeve) to the seat of authority it is today.

The role of Sheriff is unique from policing in that it is a constitutional role, a democratically-elected position in which the requirements to hold office are not cut-and-dry, nor codified across counties. The author argues that while the position held a role previously that aimed to protect citizens from big government and, in turn, to inform the government of the local happenings, that role may no longer be required. What does the sheriff's dept do that a municipality's police dept does not or cannot? For one, Sheriffs often run the jail systems, arresting and then incarcerating; a system which has shown to have rampant misuse of power and contributed to recidivism instead of actively working to rehabilitate those who need the support.

The author argues in favor of abolishing the position of sheriff and its department, though this conviction is only revealed in the conclusion, after myriad chapters prior explain in-depth how the position has been used to foster strong nationalist sentiment and a sense of vigilante-ism. I, for now, can't yet wrap my head around a complete removal of the role, but I can see how re-allocating funding to support more constructive social safety nets would be more effective in the long-run than continuing with a system that allows a particular demographic of people to rule with impunity. There are many reasons to not counter an incumbent's run for office, one being that those in opposition to the current authority may lose their jobs or good standing or other arbitrary consequence. A sheriff can say "if you don't like me, vote me out," but the reality is much more difficult to attain. The reasons for creating the office of Sheriff are antiquated, as are many of the reasons for keeping it. This book presents a strong argument for reviewing that role closely and holding it up to the light for a fairer display of its real effectiveness and consequences.

[grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sometimes when you are listening to an audio book your brain just does not keep up with the amount of information that is being shoved into it and that's why it took me so dang long to finish this book. every time I would start it I would get to the end of the chapter and say to myself, "what the fuck did I just listen to," and then have to go back and figure out the answer to that question.

However, this book did bring to life a facet of American life that I previously had no idea existed. They only exposure to the county sheriff I had was in the MTV TV show Teen Wolf in which Stiles Stilinski's dad is the Sheriff and he was a cool guy. COP PROPAGANDA!

Anyway, what this book does teach you in that the county sheriffs who belong to the constitutional sheriff movement essentially believe because they are an elected office that they have no oversight and can act however they want in their own self interest and claim it is for the people, because the people voted them in. This leads to massive oversights on abuse specifically racial abuse towards inmates or even innocent civilians who the sheriffs are targeting.

Sherriff abuse also peaked in the pandemic era as sheriffs refuse to enforce gathering restrictions, mask mandates and other state-wide restrictions because they thought that they were infringing on people's rights.

Pishko also goes into the history of the sheriff's office and really explains how the role stared as a slave catching position. it was created for a specifically racist ideology of returning slaves to their owners and then to keeping black people out of the western US. The way she talks about it really helps you understand why "reforming the police" isn't really possible from inside the system, because the whole system is in fact doing what it was designed to do, which is to be unjust towards black people in America.

It's a great explanation on system of oppression in the United States, and how people in power exploit the system. It's also harrowing to hear just how many sheriffs have used their jails to abuse people without facing any consequences.

[Mr. Book · Rating 5 out of 5]

You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.

Thank you, Penguin Group Dutton, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.

Mr. Book just finished The Highest Law In The Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy, by Jessica Pishko.

This book does an excellent job covering the “constitutional sheriff” movement. It is a right-wing movement that is dedicated to white supremacy and Christian nationalism, while purporting to be upholding the Constitution.

Among the many abuses of power that are covered is the arbitrary power to decide who to arrest, profiting off the local jails, the deplorable conditions in jails, especially with COVID, protecting domestic abusers by ignoring their victims and their role in abusing immigrants.

The book documents how sheriffs have become extreme pro-gun advocates, even successfully going to Supreme Court and getting the provision of the Brady Act that had required sheriffs to enforce restrictions declared unconstitutional. But, when it comes to enforcing gun restrictions, sheriffs are very good at making sure that the laws aren’t enforced against whites.

The book also documents the sheriffs’ love of the militia movement, with quotes implying there may be some degree of control, or at least big influence, that they have over the para-military groups.

I give this book an A+ and inducted it into the Hall of Fame. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A+ equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).

As soon as I finished this, I got the audiobook so I will also be able to listen to it.

This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews

Mr. Book finished reading this on October 13, 2024.

[Hollie A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great book for people interested in current events and the state of American democracy, “The Highest Law in the Land” is a thoughtful investigation of the county sheriffs, which Pishko rightly identifies as “a gravely under-examined institution.” However, for readers looking to gain historical insight into the growth of police powers in American history, Pishko’s work will likely be underwhelming.
The author is upfront about her goals and openly reflexive about her own position, especially when it comes to the rise of so-called constitutional sheriffs. She ends the introduction by proclaiming “I do not want to both-sides the issue. The threat is coming from the right” (p. 11). She supports that assertion with deeply researched and well-reasoned arguments. She meaningfully examines the nearly unchecked power of America’s 3,000+ sheriffs, as well as the role they play in politics, incarceration policies and practices, gun and drug control policies, enforcement of racial hierarchies, the so-called border wars, and the ways in which the elected status of sheriffs is often as ruse. As a person who has lived much of my adult life in a county where the sheriff openly opposed the will of many of his constituents (Sheriff Tracee Murphy and Cannabis Decriminalization in Texas) , I found some of these sections of particular interest.
However, as a historian and sociologist interested in historical abuse of police powers in the Jim Crow South (who also keeps up with current events), I found Pishko’s work to be largely political rather than scholarly. I don’t believe this is something she would argue with, rather political analysis is part of her goal. For me though, when I read a blurb about “getting to the root” of something, I anticipate more historical context and analysis. As a result, I was disappointed to learn so little from “The Highest Law in the Land.”
None of this means the book is badly written or poorly conceptualized. It will be very useful for readers who want to become better informed about the state of law enforcement and politics in 2020s America.

[Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Investigative reporting at its finest, Jessica Pishko goes deep into the proverbial heart of darkness in America to uncover the almost unchecked power that local sheriffs have over their communities. It is apparent that the unique American project of hyper-decentralized power and radical individualism is a deeply flawed one, and in this book the author details an often-overlooked link in the reactionary chain.

Students of history will recognize the role of sheriffs for their propping up of white supremacy, but the real value of this book is uncovering the powerful carceral tools that sheriffs have; their ability to run and fund local jails, the way they directly profit from prison labor, their role in registering firearms, etc. Perhaps I'm a touch naive, but as someone who grew up predominantly in the northeastern part of the United States (a region that lacks a "sheriff myth") it was enlightening and alarming to read of the almost unchecked power these local officials have.

If, like me, you're someone on the left, this book (perhaps paired with something like Jeff Sharlet's The Undertow) will open your eyes to the roadblocks standing in the way of any sort of systemic change to the country's systems. And particularly the chapter at the end, which talk about how effectively the Claremont Institute has used their workshops and bootcamps to impart a deeply conservative and hierarchical ideology on law enforcement, got me thinking about how poorly the left has packaged, "sold", and disseminated its own ideological project.

This is a difficult but necessary read.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses”

This is a well-reported account of a certain kind of villain that doesn’t get many column inches compared to the usual scumbags. Perhaps it’s due to the death of local newspapers and community journalism? Nevertheless, this is a solid look into the power structures of county sheriffs departments and the ties some of the most prominent sheriffs have to far-right and white supremacist movements. It was a bit repetitive at times when it felt like the point had already been made. While I found the conclusions sound, I would have liked greater detail on what reform could look like. The author mentions that 4% of sheriffs are black and 2% are women. I wanted to read profiles of some of those folks and their counties to learn if the jails and deputies are just as deplorable or if there’s a noticeable difference that bucks the stats. (Or any other communities where the system is ���working.” I also want to do away with all cops and guns*, but incremental change or reform is more likely than any radical notions.) I initially was tempted to round way up to five stars to offset the inevitable barrage of one-stars from the bootlickers, but I’m choosing to ignore their existence altogether.

*unrelated, but living in a country without guns feels like true freedom. I dread the thought of returning to the U.S. for that reason alone.

[Fred Kontur · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an eye-opening book about how sheriffs across the country have nearly unchecked power to do what they please. The sheriff is an elected political office at the county level who is typically considered to be at the same level as county supervisors. That means that nobody at the county level has power over the sheriff. While arguably the governor, attorney general, and other state-level politicians do have oversight over county sheriffs, the chain of command and processes to remove a sheriff are complicated and circuitous, which means that state-level politicians rarely go through the trouble even for sheriffs who are clearly in dereliction of their duties. In addition, sheriffs who are technically doing their duties have perverse incentives to focus on revenue sources and politically lucrative relationships rather than actually maintaining law and order in their counties. This includes building ever-larger jails and renting out jailhouse labor to private entities, or leasing jail space to other law-enforcement agencies such as ICE. In addition, as elected officials, they benefit from maintaining good relationships with wealthy donors and, in rural counties, groups like militias who hold political sway in those regions. This book shows that an office that has power to incarcerate anyone in their jurisdiction while being answerable to nobody is a recipe for disaster.

[Omega Locust · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of people complain that this book is biased against sheriffs but I felt like it was pretty reasonable overall. Pishko is definitely a strong progressive on law enforcement issues, but defends pretty much every argument she makes in this book in detail.

I felt like this book was a good companion to Kristin Kobes Du Mez‘s book Jesus and John Wayne. That book traced the intellectual history of modern American Evangelical patriarchy. In a lot of ways, the modern Constitution Sheriff movement feels like the practical application of the worldview Du Mez was describing.

The one thing that I felt like this book was missing was more interrogation of where the current movement to reform the sheriff position falls short. Over the past few years, we’ve seen a disconnect between progressive advocacy organizations and the marginalized people they’re advocating for, and I would’ve liked to see some more unpacking of where that divide comes from and the problems it poses for criminal justice reform efforts. The other area where I wish this book had used a more critical lens is on the issue of reformist sheriffs. Like Pishko, I’m happy to see more reform-oriented sheriffs getting elected, but this book doesn’t spend much time exploring whether their reform efforts have actually succeeded.