Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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 billboard in Times Square.

A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein Files on July 23, 2025 in New York City. Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department's review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, telling him that his name appeared in the files.

Getty Images, Adam Gray

FBI–DOJ Failure on 1996 Epstein Complaint Demands Congressional Accountability

On Aug. 29, 1996, Maria Farmer reported her sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the New York Police Department. Ms. Farmer contacted the FBI as advised by the police. On Sept. 3, 1996, the FBI identified the case as “child pornography” since naked or semi-naked hard copy pictures existed.

It wasn’t until Nov. 19, 2025 when the Epstein Files Transparency Act became law whereby all files – including Farmer’s 1996 complaint -- were to be made public by Dec. 19. Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to release 100% of the files as mandated by law.

Keep ReadingShow less
Empty jury seats in a courtroom.

From courtrooms to redistricting, citizen panels prove impartial judgment is still possible in American democracy.

Getty Images, Mint Images

How Juries and Citizen Commissions Strengthen Democracy

In the ongoing attacks on democracy in 2025, juries and judges played a key role in maintaining normal standards of civil rights. As it turns out, they have something important to teach us about democracy reform as well.

The Power of Random Selection

Juries are an interesting feature of the American legal system. They are assemblies of men and women picked at random, who come together on a one-time basis to perform a key role: rendering an independent judgment in a trial or indictment proceeding. Once they're done, they are free to go home.

Keep ReadingShow less
Undocumented Students and Education: Rights, Risks, and What’s Changing
People are protesting for immigrants' rights.
Photo by Jason Leung on Unsplash

Undocumented Students and Education: Rights, Risks, and What’s Changing

The state of educational rights for undocumented people has been a longstanding policy dilemma that continues to have an uncertain trajectory. Its legal beginnings emerged in 1982, when the Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe ruled against the state of Texas Education Code Section 21.031, which would have allowed school districts to deny undocumented students enrollment in K-12 public schools. In its decision, the Court noted that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens, regardless of lawful status.

As for postsecondary education, section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 prohibits undocumented people from receiving in-state tuition. In addition, federal loan applications that require Social Security Numbers for eligibility—outlined on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) website—render federal aid inaccessible to undocumented students, who might consequently avoid higher education or, in some cases, risk deportation after applying for aid.

Keep ReadingShow less
Justice in the Age of Algorithms: Guardrails for AI

Microchip labeled "AI"

Eugene Mymrin/Getty Images

Justice in the Age of Algorithms: Guardrails for AI

Artificial intelligence is already impacting the criminal justice system, and its importance is increasing rapidly. From automated report writing to facial recognition technology, AI tools are already shaping decisions that affect liberty, safety, and trust. The question is not whether these technologies will be used, but how—and under what rules.

The Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, in late October, released a framework designed to answer that question. The panel, which includes technologists, police executives, civil rights advocates, community leaders, and formerly incarcerated people, is urging policymakers to adopt five guiding principles to ensure AI is deployed safely, ethically, and effectively.

Keep ReadingShow less