Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How Lawyers Protect America’s Democracy and Rule of Law

A call for lawyers to defend constitutional principles amid unprecedented challenges

Opinion

How Lawyers Protect America’s Democracy and Rule of Law
person in orange long sleeve shirt writing on white paper
Photo by Romain Dancre on Unsplash

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.


Twenty-five lawyers signed the Declaration of Independence (of fifty-six signatories). The chief author, Thomas Jefferson, was a lawyer. Signing took considerable courage. That act was treason under English law, punishable by death or imprisonment, and it put the signatories’ lives, families, and estates at great risk.

The Declaration was an indictment of “tyrant” King George III, listing twenty-seven specific grievances. It is best known for recognizing the people’s fundamental rights (to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”); declaring the independence “of the thirteen united States of America;” and especially for its statement that governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This concept of popular sovereignty is the foundation of our democracy.

Lawyers and those with legal training also helped draft and secure the adoption of the U.S. Constitution (twenty-three of the thirty-nine signatories in 1787 were lawyers or legally trained), the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), and later Constitutional amendments. For centuries, lawyers have invoked the structural provisions of the Constitution (especially those creating checks and balances) and the amendments to protect the lives, liberty, and property of American citizens and residents from arbitrary and vindictive governmental actions.

Throughout our history, lawyers have also challenged “popular tyranny” and angry mobs, even when representing those hated by the community has imperiled their practices, families, and community standing. One historic example was the defense by future president John Adams, at age thirty-four, of eight British soldiers and their officer in what is known as the 1770 Boston Massacre, in which five colonists were shot and killed.

Adams was a strong patriot and staunch critic of the Crown, but he accepted this representation, knowing that public hatred of the soldiers would extend to his defense of them. Based on Adams’ defense of self-defense (from the angry rock-and ice-throwing crowd), the jury acquitted the officer and six soldiers and convicted two others of manslaughter (with, as punishment, an “M” branded on their thumbs).

Adams said later that this was “one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country." He was celebrating his role, the lawyer’s role, in assuring that the rule of law was applied under the most trying circumstances in our embryonic nation.

We need to call on these traditions today. Our president and his executive branch are attacking our democracy and the rule of law in ways that have no parallels in our history. In a very incomplete list of unconstitutional actions, they have appropriated powers constitutionally committed to Congress; sought to federalize elections, although the Constitution unambiguously commits the control of elections to state and federal legislatures; and punished law firms, individuals, and many organizations for actions protected by an array of constitutional provisions.

The worst, however, for many has been the seizure of the Department of Justice. The president has converted this once quasi-independent and well-respected defender of the rule of law into his personal law firm and committed its leadership to his angry and legally meritless campaign of revenge.

What can lawyers do today to fight back and honor our long tradition? They can join Lawyers Defending American Democracy. LDAD offers a menu of activities that draw on the distinct skills of lawyers across the full range of practice areas.

As a lawyer, you can educate your community on legal ethics and further the public's understanding of and confidence in the rule of law. This educational function is critically important today. Justice Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, said:

Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

Lawyers need a counter-teaching campaign to make it clear to all that today’s law-breaking federal government is not even within the outer limits of acceptable norms. It is an extraordinarily dangerous aberration that rejects the rule of law and seeks to nullify our legal and traditional commitments to democracy.

Where can lawyers do this? Through newspaper opinion pieces and letters to the editor, on social media platforms and in talks, for example, at public libraries and before civic and neighborhood groups, fraternal organizations, and church groups, among others.

If lawyers do more, whatever that may be, their work will echo John Adams' words that it was “one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."

This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.

Michael Millemann is co-lead of the Maine chapter of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and is a retired lawyer and law professor. Shortly before retiring, he developed and taught a course for first-year law students on the lawyer's role in protecting democracy.


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