Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

When lawyers attack the rule of law

Justice is blind statue symbolizing law with scales and sword in hands and a US flag in the background
SimpleImages/Getty Images

Lawyers Defending American Democracy invites you to attend a free webinar, “When Lawyers Attack the Rule of Law,” on Wednesday, Sept. 18 at 2 p.m. Pacific (5 p.m. Eastern).

Please register for this important webinar.


This special event will feature a timely conversation between UCLA School of Law professor Scott Cummings and Boston Globe senior opinion writer and columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr about the ways in which lawyers enable — and are complicit in — the creation of autocracies.

Cummings was named a 2023 Guggenheim fellow to study the role of lawyers in backsliding democracies. Stohr is an on-air political analyst for MSNBC, frequent panelist on NBC's “Meet the Press” and co-host of the legal news podcast “#SistersInLaw.”

In June 2024 Cummings warned about the danger we face:

“In recent years, scholars have focused significant attention on the fading fortunes of democracy around the world. This decline has occurred at the hands of new legal autocrats who dismantle democracy not through violent coups but rather through ostensibly legal actions—like changing the rules of judicial selection and elections—that undermine institutional checks on executive power. Yet while this literature helpfully spotlights law as an essential tool of democratic backsliding, it has largely ignored the actors who wield this tool: lawyers. This is a significant omission since, as the Stop the Steal campaign to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election revealed, lawyers serve as crucial gatekeepers to legal institutions targeted by autocrats (like courts and the attorney general’s office) and are necessary to design and execute legal plans to circumvent constitutional requirements (like election certification and the peaceful transition of power). Precisely because lawyers are guardians of the legal legitimacy upon which autocratic legalism depends, the profession is a critical arena of democratic struggle that merits special attention.
“Rule-of-law attacks like Stop the Steal do not occur in a vacuum. They are manifestations of a deeper democratic malaise. That malaise is a product of structural forces that occur over long time horizons and affect the profession, reshaping lawyer norms and practices in ways that can create conditions of possibility for rule of law attacks to occur.
“One such norm, central to the rule of the law, is professional independence. Because lawyers control access to legal institutions, they serve the critical role of screening legitimate legal claims. Public lawyers—prosecutors and government legal advisors—have special obligations in this regard, guaranteeing that when legal decisions have a policy impact, they are made in the public interest and not for partisan advantage.”

Lawyers have essential roles to play in the struggle to protect and defend our democracy. Join this important webinar to learn more.

Read More

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less