Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Federalism at Its Best

​U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Ted Cruz’s “Darkest Before Dawn” Melodrama Misses the Message of the Midterms

Voters in Alaska

What To Know About Alaska’s Election System

Blue wave with the US Capitol building

The 2026 Blue Wave: Voters Rejected Trump, Not Endorsed Democrats

President Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s Midterm Delusion: Why a Red Wave Turned Blue

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
The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumSep 17, 2024
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

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.


Latest news

You Can’t Buy Authenticity
Democracy

You Can’t Buy Authenticity

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Elections

The Customer Is Always Right: Why Speaker Johnson’s Post-Midterm Arrogance Misses the Mark

Judge's Gavel Hammer as a Symbol of Law and Order with Processor CPU AI Chip.
Media & Technology

Let the Bots Have the Internet!

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
© Copyright 2026