Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Day of Endangered Lawyer

Opinion

Day of Endangered Lawyer
woman in gold dress holding sword figurine

Each year in January a variety of international organizations of lawyers including several Bar Associations and Law Societies commemorate the International Day of the Endangered Lawyer. The recognition began in 2009, dedicated to the memory of five lawyers murdered in the 1977 Atocha massacre in Madrid. The day marks the observance that, around the world (usually in tyrannical regimes), lawyers face threats, intimidation, and retaliation for carrying out their legitimate professional responsibilities of defending human rights and liberties while upholding the rule of law. Historically, the recognitions have focused on, for example, Belarus 2025; Iran 2024; Afghanistan 2023; Colombia 2022; Azerbaijan 2021; Pakistan 2020; Turkey 2019; Egypt 2028; China 2017, and so on. Traditionally, the focus has been on countries; we in the common law system might have considered them less developed than, say, the UK, US, Canada, and Australia.

This year is different. This year, the international organizations chose to focus on the United States of America as the place where lawyers and the rule of law are under severe threat.


The Trump administration's assault on lawyers and the rule of law has drawn international condemnation and placed the entire profession in peril.

It is fairly well accepted that the Department of Justice under Bondi has lost its independence and moral compass and currently operates as a weaponized agency primarily to carry out the President’s bidding. Further, it has lost credibility with the Judicial system after several of its attorneys have been reprimanded for lying to the Courts. AI tells me that more than 6,400 employees have left the Department of Justice, and that 230 lawyers have been fired since the President took office.

The adversarial system is fundamental to the US legal framework, emphasizing the role of juries in trials. The Fifth Amendment guarantees all persons (it is not limited, I note, to just citizens) a right to due process, and the Sixth Amendment provides all persons (once again not limited to Citizens) with a right to Counsel. Several Courts have held summarial extradition to be unconstitutional.

This Administration has elicited a coordinated campaign undermining the independence of the legal profession in the U.S. through various executive actions and political pressures, as part of an overt effort to deny the people of America their constitutional rights.

  • The American Bar Association (ABA) has been subjected to threats and restrictions, including lawsuits against the government for retaliatory measures.
  • State bar associations have been stripped of their DEI programs and have been intimidated from commenting on constitutional abuses by the government
  • Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders have targeted at least 15 distinguished law firms and lawyers, restricting their professional practices, not because they committed malpractice or ethical violations, but because the President did not like the clients that they represented or the positions that they took in court.

The President of the United States is the most corrupt in history having been twice impeached, convicted of 34 felonies, accused of sexual assault by more than 25 women, accused of fraud in a variety of manifestations, having enriched himself and his family to the tune of several billion dollars, while in office, as well as being the subject of other criminal accusations, declared recently that there is no limit on his global authority specifying: that his only limitation is his own morality…my mind is the only thing that can stop me.

Stephen Miller, a Senior White House adviser to the President, opined, “We live in a world, in the real world…that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.”

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently wrote that “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.”

Justice Elena Kagan warned that Donald Trump would have "massive unchecked, uncontrolled power."

And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that "having a President come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs (and I selfishly insert lawyers) and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States."

Lawrence Tribe states that Trump’s Conduct poses a significant threat to the integrity of the legal system. He emphasized that Lawyers hold a crucial position in the defense of democracy, asserting that they can either uplift it or facilitate its downfall. Trump’s actions, including the targeting of lawyers and law firms critical of his administration, are seen as an attempt to intimidate the legal profession.

For some deeper analysis, I encourage you to access the:

REPORT ON THE COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL DAY OF THE ENDANGERED LAWYER

The American Government is founded on the law as grounded in the US Constitution. The President’s approach to governance is to ignore the law and simply pardon anyone who violates the law on his behalf. In so doing, in the words of Justice Sotomayor, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court "to destroy the structure of government”.

Without independent lawyers to hold the government accountable, there can be no law.

Walter Hiawatha White Jr. is a member of the Board of Directors of Lawyers Defending American Democracy; a founding director and later chair of the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights; past chair of the ABA Section on Civil Rights & Social Justice; a past member of the ABA board of Governors; Past Chair of the Central Asian American Enterprise Fund, (appointed by President Clinton), retired Partner of several international law firms. www.ldad.org


Read More

​Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe

Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on October 13, 2026 in Ithaca, New York.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Sexual Violence Requires More Than Legal Accountability

In the wake of public attention to the Cornell fraternity alleged gang-rape, headlines resound with statements of concern and calls for greater accountability. These calls are not new. They have followed countless incidents of sexual violence, whether on a college campus, in connection with work, or within an intimate relationship. Despite decades of law and policy reform, sexual violence continues to run rampant. While law and policy reform are sorely needed, we will not see long-lasting change unless we address what accountability truly means. Our collective response should aim for a world where no one would ever think it was ok to commit, condone, or be a passive witness to sexual violence, never mind that it would be ok to send the kind of text messages that were allegedly exchanged at the Cornell fraternity where the rape allegedly took place.

As policymakers consider reform, a comprehensive approach to accountability should consider the known limitations of criminal and civil justice systems. Problems with the criminal legal system are legion, both within and beyond sexual violence cases. These include racially discriminatory application of laws criminalizing sexual violence, that, for example, have led to harsher punishment when the accused is a person of color and lesser punishment when the survivor is a person of color. Survivors continue to be doubted and subjected to biases and stereotypes, including that survivors lie about their experience, that they somehow invited the violence, or act with self-interest or ulterior motive when coming forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

From the Gilded Age to Citizens United, discover how recent Supreme Court rulings empower mega-donors, reshape party spending, and impact American democracy.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Rulings Help the GOP

American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.

In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less