In my posts thus far, I have focused quite heavily on legal developments in the U.S. That may seem strange from a Canadian academic. 

I talked about this a bit in my introductory post, but I am an American lawyer and a Canadian law professor. I have recently completed a year as a visiting professor of law, teaching U.S. Constitutional Law and First Amendment Law, in the U.S. I have a strong interest in U.S. and Canadian Constitutional Law.  

I am always interested in comparative law, and in determining how trends transcend legal regimes and how one area can draw strength from another. My book, Detention of Terrorism Suspects: Political Discourse and Fragmented Practices, pulled themes from across several national jurisdictions to critique transnational trends in certain detention practices after 9/11. 

I don’t wish to cross too far into the political realm now, but I will note that Canada has a federal election happening. That election has been heavily influenced by developments in the U.S. The Conservative Party has, for instance, borrowed terminology and some ideas from the U.S. Make America Great Again (“MAGA”) movement, such as the use of the word “woke” as an insult, or supporting Canada’s “Freedom Convoy,” which protested vaccine mandates during the pandemic. This similarity has been so pronounced that they have earned the nickname among some of “Maple MAGA” or sometimes “Maple Syrup MAGA.” Developments in the U.S. appear to have had a heavy influence on trends in Canadian polls in the upcoming election, although other factors, such as the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have no doubt played into that as well.  

Prominent Canadian political issues are often similar to those in the U.S., such as the ongoing battle between environmental advocates and the oil and gas industry. This issue is especially fraught in Alberta, where a major part of Canada’s oil and gas industry is located. The current Prime Minister and Liberal Candidate has been called “Carbon Tax Carney,” after a controversial carbon tax scheme. The nicknames here may not be as colourful as some of those in the U.S., but the dynamic giving rise to them has similarities.  

Such similarities and differences have become of paramount importance in Canada with the U.S. President using discourse of the “51st State,” making it clear that he is serious about trying to annex Canada, and disrespectfully referring to the Canadian Prime Minister as “Governor.” The tariff dispute started by the U.S. is, according to the U.S. President, intended, at least in part, to put “economic pressure” on Canada to join the U.S. This has resulted in a patriotic backlash among much of the Canadian public, with calls for boycotts on travel to the U.S. and a campaign to avoid buying American goods, which was encouraged by then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the tariff dispute was beginning. Grocery shelves have, in my experience, changed, with “Made in Canada” products prominently featured, and American products often remaining unsold on the shelves or removed entirely. Some of this pushback has shown up in sporting events, where Canadians have loudly booed during the playing of the U.S. National Anthem. Prominent Canadians have made public comments, whether serious or not, about the U.S. becoming Canada’s 11th province instead. 

Canadians have been limiting travel to the U.S., not just because of the threats, disrespect, and tariffs, but because of the alarming reports of the treatment of migrants by the U.S. Government. That has included the highly publicized detention of a Canadian, Jasmine Mooney, who was held for two weeks by the U.S. Government. Reports from Border officials suggest that almost 900,000 fewer people travelled from Canada to the U.S. in March, compared to the same month in 2024. Canadian travel to the U.S. has declined so much that California Governor Gavin Newsom started a public campaign to convince Canadians to visit California, pointing out its geographic distance from the seat of the federal government. Readers can look at the comments on these posts themselves, but it is fair to say this suggestion was not well received among some Canadians, with many people commenting that they would prefer not to be shipped to El Salvador. 

The U.S. legal and political regimes have, therefore, a direct influence on Canada. Indeed, the constitutional regimes cannot be easily disentangled from one another, as they share a great deal of history and many similarities in structure, along with some notable differences. I am careful in my teaching, and in my scholarship, not to delve into my political views. I often tell my students that those views might surprise them, as I am generally critical of everybody, so I antagonize people in all parts of the political spectrum at some point. 

That said, though, the political affects the legal, and the legal affects the political. So some aspects of my political views may come through my legal argumentation. I have a strong reverence for human rights, and of course many human-rights ideals are enshrined in the Constitutions of both countries, as well as beyond. I believe in the Rule of Law. I believe in the courts. Do I always agree with judicial rulings? Absolutely not. But I believe in an over-arching check on governmental excesses, or “checks and balances,” to use the American term for its system of Separation of Powers. 

I believe in education, and I am appalled by the U.S. Government’s attacks on higher education. This isn’t that surprising from a professor, of course, and I have written in the past about attacks on educational institutions in a historical context. I do not agree with retaliatory legal action based on an exercise of free speech, and that should not vary with whether one agrees with the views expressed. I have a strong belief in due process, which should not be controversial, but somehow so often is. I see those views as more the legal views of a Constitutional Law professor than as matters of mere political opinion, and my critiques on these grounds often transcend party lines and national borders. 

Much of the current situation in the U.S., though, is personal for me. It is distressing to see anger between my country of birth and my country of residence. It was a bit strange to be a Canadian in the U.S., and it is definitely a weird time to be an American in Canada. I have been on the receiving end of some of the anger directed at the U.S. Government, which has not made me happy, even when I understand and share some of it. 

I did not realize how much the friendship between my two countries meant to me until it was undermined. I was really touched by the words of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (whatever I might think of him politically) when he said of the long friendship between Canada and the U.S.: 

  

“… it doesn't have to be this way. As President John F. Kennedy said many years ago, ‘Geography has made us neighbours, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners and necessity has made us allies.’ That rang true for many decades prior to President Kennedy's time in office and the decades since. From the beaches of Normandy to the mountains of the Korean Peninsula, from the fields of Flanders to the streets of Kandahar, we have fought and died alongside you during your darkest hours. 

During the Iranian hostage crisis, those 444 days, we worked around the clock from our embassy to get your innocent compatriots home. During the summer of 2005, when Hurricane Katrina ravaged your great city of New Orleans, or mere weeks ago, when we sent water bombers to tackle the wildfires in California, during the day the world stood still — Sept. 11, 2001 — when we provided refuge to stranded passengers and planes, we were always there, standing with you, grieving with you, the American people.” 

 

I may not agree with all of the particulars of the speech, but the sentiment is important. What is happening in the U.S. is not normal, nor can it simply be discounted as one political view against another. The erosions in the Rule of Law there are happening at an alarming pace. Long-standing constitutional norms, such as due process and free speech, are simply being swept aside, along with the rise of an over-arching disdain for the courts. 

What happens in the U.S. will affect the Rule of Law in Canada, as will the current election, in part because of Canada’s response to events in the U.S. The threats and disrespect being directed towards Canada reinforce that connection. While the U.S. legal system has never been perfect (no system is), I hope for a return to a framework of adherence to the Rule of Law and regard for human rights. I ultimately hope for a return to a friendship between the countries that was always important, and which has been sabotaged for no good reason. More immediately, I hope that Canadians will vote in the upcoming election, and I will continue to comment on legal issues arising in the U.S. and elsewhere, as part of the idea of Law Crossing Borders.