by Alex Newman
As the Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) of their counties, sheriffs wear many hats in the unique American system of government. They enforce state law, yes. But they do much more than that. They uphold law and order, protect the God-given rights of citizens, and play a key role in the justice system that puts bad guys behind bars so the rest of society can continue to function in relative peace and safety. But today they are under attack for a variety
of reasons.
America finds itself in a unique era. Multiple federal agencies have been accused by both sides of the political spectrum of weaponizing their power against law-abiding citizens. State-level “woke” politicians are eroding the very office of the elected sheriff. And political agendas trampling the Bill of Rights under the guise of “public safety” or “emergency powers” are advancing quickly.
Many political leaders across the country regard sheriffs as mere enforcement instruments. And yet, a growing cadre of America’s CLEOs is standing tall as the ultimate guardian of constitutional order. Meet the “constitutional sheriffs” — elected executives who publicly stand with the oath they took to the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of their states, and who refuse to become cogs in a
centralized machine.
The modern iteration of the constitutional-sheriff movement began when Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack refused to help the federal government enforce the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The legislation, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, sought to conscript county sheriffs nationwide into enforcing what Mack and many other lawmen viewed as an unconstitutional overreach violating the Second Amendment. Mack said no.
The issue eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Mack v. United States, later renamed Printz v. United States after another sheriff joined the case as a plaintiff. Mack was fully vindicated. In fact, the high court agreed with him in its landmark ruling that relevant portions of the federal legislation purporting to require sheriffs to help enforce gun control were unconstitutional.
But perhaps even more importantly, the Supreme Court majority articulated what has come to be known as the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine. It holds that the federal government may not compel state officers — and especially not sheriffs, described in the ruling as “Chief Law Enforcement Officers” of their counties — to help enforce any federal statutes. The decision recognized that the Constitution’s 10th Amendment protecting state authority and limiting federal jurisdiction means what it says. The implications are enormous.
Thus, the modern constitutional-sheriff movement was born, with Mack eventually creating the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). Of course, in a very real sense, all sheriffs in America are and always have been constitutional sheriffs. They are elected to a key constitutional office, and swear to uphold the state and federal constitutions. But there is a difference. The movement Mack and others like him are part of insists that sheriffs’ primary duty is to the constitutions they swore to uphold and the constituents and citizens whose rights are protected therein.
“A constitutional sheriff, to put it succinctly, is a sheriff who takes his oath seriously to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution,” Mack told the Intelligence Brief in an exclusive interview. “Furthermore, he will put the Constitution first in the execution of his job, and thereby protect the civil rights of all people within his county. A constitutional sheriff will protect the people of his county from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, no exceptions. The importance of such is the guarantee this provides for individual liberty.”
Contrary to the claims of certain far-left organizations seeking to sway and co-opt law enforcement, this is not rebellion or even “anti-government,” says Mack. Instead, it is restoration. And in the face of escalating threats — including rogue federal bureaucracies, election irregularities, and United Nations-backed disarmament schemes — the constitutional-sheriff movement offers proven strategies, real-world successes, and a path forward for every law-enforcement executive to seriously consider. That is exactly why supporters of the movement say radical lawmakers in some states are putting sheriffs in the crosshairs.
What Is the Constitutional-sheriff Movement?
The constitutional-sheriff movement is a nationwide alliance of elected sheriffs and peace officers committed to the principle that the county sheriff is the supreme law-enforcement authority within his or her jurisdiction. Rooted in English common law, the structure of America’s constitutional Republic, and the explicit oath every sheriff takes to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the movement rejects the modern notion of sheriffs as mere extensions of federal or state bureaucracies.
Instead, constitutional sheriffs affirm that their primary role is to protect the Constitution and the God-given rights it enshrines. That is true even if it means interposing — lawfully standing between the people and any unconstitutional act, whether it originates from Washington, D.C., the state capital, or even misguided local politicians. When federal agents overstep their proper authority, when governors issue illegal mandates that violate the First or Second Amendment, or when political operatives corrupt election integrity, the sheriff has not just the authority to say no, but the duty to do so, Mack says.
The movement crystallized through Mack’s leadership in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Printz decision. In 2011, he formalized the movement by creating CSPOA to educate, train, and mobilize sheriffs who take their oaths seriously. Today, hundreds of sheriffs — at least 10 percent of them nationwide, according to various media reports — align with CSPOA principles and consider themselves “constitutional sheriffs.”
And the movement appears to be growing. In 2024, CSPOA hosted a major conference in Las Vegas dubbed “Resist the Temptation.” Featuring talks from experts, military leaders, and sheriffs from Virginia and Texas to Wisconsin and Washington and beyond, the conference offered practical solutions. Among the topics discussed: forming constitutional posses to help when the sheriff and his deputies are overwhelmed, investigating election fraud locally, resisting unconstitutional disarmament schemes, and protecting God-given rights against government overreach.
This writer served as emcee at the conference and gave a talk focusing on the historical and biblical basis for government, interposition, and resistance to tyranny by magistrates. Multiple lawmen, meanwhile, spoke on the importance of sheriffs and law enforcement in protecting and upholding America’s system of self-government based on the notion of God-given, unalienable rights.
What Constitutional Sheriffs Believe
At the heart of the movement lies a clear, unwavering creed: The sheriff’s oath to the Constitution is paramount. In his exclusive interview with the Intelligence Brief, Mack distilled the essence with precision and urgency. “The most peaceful and effective way to save America is county by county and state by state, one constitutional sheriff at a time,” he explained.
This belief system of sheriffs as guardians of liberty and rights flows directly from the Founders’ vision. Rights are not government-granted privileges to be regulated or legislated away; they are endowed by the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence affirms. The 10th Amendment reserves to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government. And the Constitution means what it says.
That has important implications for county sheriffs. Within the county, the elected sheriff — answerable to voters, not unelected agencies — stands as the ultimate executor of law enforcement and the primary interposer against tyranny. As such, Mack and fellow constitutional sheriffs reject blind obedience to statutes, executive orders, and agency rules that conflict with the supreme law. If a directive disarms citizens, shutters churches, or ignores due process, for example, it is no law at all. Enforcing it would violate the higher oath.
Historical examples of this abound, even recently, Mack noted. Sheriff Brad Rogers in Indiana, for instance, defended an Amish farmer from Food and Drug Administration overreach, refusing to allow federal bureaucrats to criminalize raw-milk production on private property. Sheriff Mark Lamb of Arizona declined to enforce Covid-19 mandates he viewed as unconstitutional infringements on liberty, Mack said. Sheriff Dar Leaf in Michigan, meanwhile, fought state-level corruption to investigate credible claims of election fraud, even as higher officials obstructed him.
What do law-enforcement officers need to know about this issue? “They need to know the U.S. Constitution and enforce it,” Mack stated plainly.
What Constitutional Sheriffs Do
Belief without action is meaningless, of course. Constitutional sheriffs translate their oaths into decisive, lawful deeds that protect rights and restore order.
On the Second Amendment front, sheriffs have repeatedly drawn lines against federal gun control. During President Barack Obama’s administration, hundreds of sheriffs nationwide vowed resistance as policymakers flirted with executive action to restrict gun rights and even disarm citizens. “Anytime that they come against the Second Amendment … we here are not going to comply with that,” Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman declared at the time. “Federal agents will not be allowed to come in here and do that.”
Additionally, Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller sent a letter to then-Vice President Joe Biden refusing enforcement of unconstitutional regulations, warning he would not permit federal officers to turn citizens into criminals. In Utah, 28 of 29 sheriffs signed a similar pledge, saying they were ready to “trade our lives for the preservation” of the Constitution and its protections of God-given rights, including the right of citizens to keep and
bear arms.
During the Covid-19 lockdowns, many sheriffs shined while protecting the First Amendment. New Mexico’s Sheriff Glenn Hamilton told this writer how he deputized an entire church congregation in Sierra County to exempt them from Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s order shutting down churches as “non-essential.” Using an exception for law enforcement from the lockdowns, Hamilton refused to allow his constituents’ rights to
be trampled.
Indeed, sheriffs all over the country were in the news for refusing to enforce state and local mandates they viewed as illegal or unconstitutional. Mayors, governors, and some media outlets complained loudly. But in the end, the sheriffs who refused to enforce illegal and unconstitutional decrees were vindicated for protecting the rights of the citizens in
their counties.
Election integrity has emerged as a critical battleground, too. Michigan’s Sheriff Leaf told this writer about how he doggedly pursued investigations into 2020 irregularities despite state obstruction, calling for task forces to address what he described as potentially “the greatest fraud ever committed.” At CSPOA events and other conferences, sheriffs have strategized on securing polls, safeguarding equipment, and acting locally when higher authorities falter.
Practical tools include the constitutional posse. Washington’s Sheriff Bob Songer told this writer about a 150-member, highly trained posse of screened citizens he created. These are not vigilantes, he emphasized, but a lawful auxiliary for crime fighting, search and rescue, and community defense. Formed after attending a CSPOA conference, Sheriff Songer said, it saves taxpayer dollars and empowers locals under the sheriff’s
constitutional authority.
Interposition against rogue federal agents is another hallmark. Texas’ Sheriff Scott Williams, at a CSPOA panel at Freedom Fest, described sending a deputy to accompany Secret Service agents questioning a citizen over social-media comments about Biden and Nancy Pelosi. “It is my sole purpose in life to stand in the gap for my citizens,” Williams stated, underscoring sheriffs’ duty to protect the rights of constituents no matter how concerns
may arise.
Education is foundational. Texas’ Sheriff Cutter Clinton emphasizes teaching the Constitution to children, ensuring that future generations understand their rights and the sheriff’s role in safeguarding them. While children learn constitutional basics, lawmen can and should learn about common law, the Printz precedent, and even irregular-warfare preparedness amid the illegal-migration threat.
These actions remain firmly within constitutional bounds: no anarchy, only ordered liberty enforced county by county.
What They Have Accomplished
These actions are not theoretical — they have produced real change. Indeed, the constitutional-sheriff movement’s track record includes numerous tangible victories in preserving freedom and checking power. The Printz decision itself remains a key win, preventing federal commandeering while both inspiring and legitimizing resistance to illegal usurpations of power nationwide. Mack’s CSPOA has trained hundreds of sheriffs, creating a network that now comprises about 10 percent of them — and is growing rapidly.
During Covid, sheriffs like Hamilton kept churches operating and businesses viable in their counties, exposing the arbitrariness of mandates and contributing to their eventual rollback. Gun-control vows under Obama — and similar stands since — have deterred enforcement of extreme measures even at the state level in places such as Illinois and New York. Surveys of officers and deputies show overwhelming support for armed self-defense and reluctance to enforce draconian restrictions against fellow Americans. Even the threat of noncompliance by sheriffs has been a powerful check on arbitrary and unconstitutional power.
Broader cultural shifts are evident. Citizens increasingly view constitutional sheriffs as allies against both street criminals and bureaucratic tyrants. The “key to local control” model — requiring federal consent for county actions — has influenced legislation in multiple states. Even media hysteria, with outlets such as The Guardian and NBC labeling CSPOA events “dangerous” before they begin, underscores the movement’s impact: When notoriously anti-law-enforcement news outlets lose it over sheriffs offering solutions on elections, immigration, and rights, it signals that real threats to the status quo are involved.
The Threat to Sheriffs
As the constitutional-sheriff movement has gained traction, certain policymakers have noticed the threat to their power — and they are not happy. “There’s a growing movement in woke blue states to destroy the office of the sheriff and to limit his role in defending the Constitution,” Mack warned. “This is very dangerous as it is an affront against the people — We the People — in selecting our own sheriffs. Corrupt politicians dislike sheriffs because they are independent and do not mindlessly follow orders.”
Exhibit A was Connecticut. In that state, the office of sheriff had existed since Colonial times. But in the late 1990s, Democratic politicians exploited some scandals to push for a constitutional amendment eliminating the office altogether. Effective December 1, 2000, all eight sheriffs were stripped of their power, leaving only state police and local departments with appointed leaders to handle law enforcement.
Now, politicians in Washington state are moving against sheriffs. With legislation that would impose more “standards” for sheriffs and allow the state to remove them, Democratic lawmakers would make themselves rather than county voters the ultimate arbiters. Republicans, some Democrats, and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs all opposed the bill, but it
passed anyway.
This is really a “political attack on county sheriffs,” explained Washington state Representative Jim Walsh, a Republican. “It’s bad policy, built on fearmongering and disinformation about what sheriffs do.” Sheriff Keith Swank of Pierce County said the legislation was a scheme by Democrats to use the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission to decertify sheriffs they dislike and have them removed from office.
A Call to Law-enforcement Executives
To every sheriff and police chief reading this: The constitutional-sheriff movement invites you to rediscover your rightful role. Study the Constitution you swore to uphold. Know its text, history, and original meaning. Understand the God-given rights that the Founders sought to protect by enshrining them in that unique document. And when the next federal directive, state mandate, or “emergency” order arrives that infringes on those rights — ask the Mack question: Does this align with my oath? When Mack and others stood against the Brady Bill and the full weight of federal power, they won because they stood on the Constitution.
Mack also encourages sheriffs to form relationships with their citizens. Train deputies well. Consider creating a constitutional posse to help as needed. Stand in the gap. If you encounter resistance to your independent authority, recognize it for what it is: an assault on the people’s right to elect their own guardians. And if somebody unconstitutionally or lawlessly comes after your citizens and their rights — whether it be a criminal or a rogue bureaucrat — interpose on their behalf to ensure justice.
As Mack and other constitutional sheriffs have shown through their battles, a few determined sheriffs can shift the balance. Hundreds already have. America’s survival as a republic of ordered liberty depends on law-enforcement leaders who remember that America is supposed to be governed by laws, not men — and that the “supreme law of the land” is the one ratified by “We the People” known as the U.S. Constitution.
The question is straightforward: Will you be a constitutional sheriff? Ask yourself — and encourage every colleague to do the same. The Republic needs more good sheriffs willing to stand by their oath and do the right thing, every time. It needs you.