Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It’s time to defend the guardrails of democracy

Opinion

It’s time to defend the guardrails of democracy

A gavel.

Getty Images, Alexander Sikov

Lawyers know that President Trump’s executive orders targeting individual law firms, and now, the entire legal profession, are illegal and unconstitutional. The situation puts a choice to every lawyer and every law firm. Do you fight – speak out and act out against this lawless behavior? Or do you accommodate it, keep your head down, and wait for the storm to pass?

The answer is to fight. Here’s why – and here’s what lawyers should do.


Our system of government is rooted in the principle that government power is constrained by guardrails. Whether legal, constitutional, or simply norms of behavior, these guardrails are so clear that few Americans disagree with them: government power is constrained by the courts; free speech is sacred; Congress gets to decide how money is spent; law enforcement decisions are made through a rigorous process, not political whim; government officials must tell the truth and follow the law.

These guardrails are not self-enforcing. All citizens have a role to play in enforcing these principles but lawyers have a special duty. For the privilege of entering this profession, lawyers swear an oath to protect the Constitution. And that means when the government is crashing through these guardrails, lawyers have an obligation to act – and to take sides.

Paul, Weiss is an example of a firm that has failed to live up to this standard. After being hit with an illegal and unconstitutional executive order, trying to put the firm out of business, the firm decided that instead of fighting, it would cut a deal requiring it to provide $40 million in free legal representation to causes identified by President Trump and to make other major changes in its operations. The leadership of Paul, Weiss decided that its highest duty was to stay in business.

Other firms and attorneys are in the fight. For example, Williams & Connolly is representing Perkins Coie, as it deals with another illegal and unconstitutional executive order targeting it. This is an act of principle and courage, as Williams & Connolly will likely face a fate similar to their client’s. Or look to the example of the young associate from Skadden who had everything to lose but decided her principles mattered more than her job.

Far too many law schools and their leaders seem to be trying to avoid confrontation. But these institutions, which teach the Constitution, the rule of law, legal ethics, and lawyers’ duty to preserve and protect a system of law focused on justice and fairness, don’t get to sit silently when those very principles are under attack. They have an obligation to set an example. It is past time for these leaders to speak out against this behavior, to call out their alumni who are acting this way, and to even revoke their degrees.

Individual lawyers and ordinary citizens also must act. If you’re an attorney at a firm that won’t live up to these sacred principles, there are other firms that will hire you. If you’re a company with business with a firm that isn’t living up to these standards, consider moving your business to one that does. And if you’re an alumni of a law school that has stood on the sidelines, demand action, and stop donating.

Above all, the message must be clear. The government cannot break the law and it cannot violate the Constitution. As lawyers, we swear an oath to represent our clients with zeal. The Constitution and the rule of law deserve the same representation. In the end, if lawyers won’t speak out now, when their profession is under an illegal and unconstitutional attack, when will they? If lawyers won’t fight for themselves, who will? And if lawyers cave in, who will be left to fight for the rest of us?


Evan Falchuk is the chair of the executive committee of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Read More

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem restores ICE authority in Los Angeles, igniting national debate over racial profiling, constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in September 2025 to stay a lower court’s order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The decision temporarily lifted a district court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing agents to resume certain enforcement practices while litigation continues. Although the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues, it does have significant implications for immigration policy, law enforcement authority, and civil liberties.

Keep ReadingShow less
She Begged for Help. This State’s Probation Gap May Have Put Her in Danger.

Karen Peebles holds a photograph of her daughter, Temptress “Chippie” Peebles, and her granddaughter, Khloe. Temptress Peebles was killed, allegedly by her ex-boyfriend while he was on probation.

William DeShazer for ProPublica

She Begged for Help. This State’s Probation Gap May Have Put Her in Danger.

On Oct. 7, 2019, a 30-year-old beautician named Temptress Peebles called the Nashville probation office begging for help. Days earlier, her ex-boyfriend Brandon Horton had come up behind her, choked her and kicked her in the face, according to a court document.

Records show that was just the most recent attack. She had been living in a constant state of fear, her family said, since Horton had broken down her door and pointed a gun at her three months earlier, court records show. He had open warrants for his arrest, so she and her 8-year-old daughter, Khloe, were avoiding the apartment, always taking different roads to get to work or to stay at her family’s house.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady of Justice in front of a U.S. flag.

Retired federal judges speak out on the rule of law, judicial independence, and the Constitution’s role in protecting democracy amid growing political attacks.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Retired Federal Judge Warns of Threats to Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law

In times of democratic strain, clarity must come not only from scholars and journalists but also from those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution with impartiality and courage.

This first in a series in the Fulcrum, “Judges on Democracy,” invites retired federal judges to speak directly to the American public about the foundational principles of our legal system: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the indispensable role of an independent judiciary in our democratic republic.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
YouTube

When Belief Becomes Law: The Rise of Executive Rule and the Vanishing of Facts

During his successful defense of the British soldiers accused of killing Americans in the Boston Massacre of 1770, John Adams, the nation's second president, famously observed that "facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Times have changed. When President Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, saying that the jobs numbers compiled by the agency's nonpartisan analysts and experts "were RIGGED” some pundits observed that you can fire the umpire, but you can’t change the score.

Keep ReadingShow less