Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lawyers Must Defend the Rule of Law, as the Founders Intended

When lawyers ignore their oaths, the rule of law falters—and democracy is put at risk

Opinion

Lawyers Must Defend the Rule of Law, as the Founders Intended
We the People billboard
Photo by Larry Alger on Unsplash

The Declaration of Independence is an explanation for why the colonists wanted their own country, but it's mostly an indictment: a 27-count charging document against King George III for running a lawless government. “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice.” “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people.”

It shouldn't be a surprise that so many of the 56 signers of the Declaration were lawyers. Lawyers swear an oath to the truth, to good faith, and to ethical conduct. In this year of the Declaration's 250th anniversary, it's important to remind lawyers of their oaths and their duty to defend against lawless, unethical behavior. At a time when it seems that more lawyers than ever are breaking faith with their oaths, the Declaration provides a model for how lawyers should respond.


It sounds easy, but it’s not. In the face of repeated acts of dishonesty and bad faith from government lawyers and lawyers representing government officials, too many bar associations, law school deans, law firm leaders, and individual lawyers have avoided calling out this conduct. The common excuse is a desire to avoid being seen as taking sides in a political dispute. But these are not political disputes. These are lawyers, in public and in court, lying and misleading, often in service of illegal and unconstitutional ends.

For example, Rudy Giuliani, once a hero for his actions as mayor of New York City after 9/11, decided in 2021 to mislead a court, lie to the public, and participate in an illegal and unconstitutional scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Other attorneys, including John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, promoted a false legal basis to overturn the election, and pressured the Vice President to exercise powers they knew he did not have. Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), where I am a board member, enlisted the nation's leading ethics lawyers to file complaints against each of these individuals for their conduct. Each has been disciplined: Giuliani and Chesebro disbarred in New York, Eastman disbarred in California.

LDAD has filed more than a dozen complaints, signed by thousands of lawyers and non-lawyers. Nearly all of these complaints have led to an investigation or discipline. But there are exceptions. In Florida, LDAD filed a complaint against then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, detailing a series of unethical and dishonest actions by Ms. Bondi. The complaint was supported by a team of renowned ethics attorneys and other professionals, including an LDAD board member who is a former Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. Despite all this, the Florida Bar refused to even open an investigation because the AG was a federal constitutional office-holder, a position that lacked legal authority. The people who signed the Declaration would undoubtedly find this to be an absurd betrayal.

Lawyers have a special responsibility to act. An increasing number of lawyers are doing just that, at least judging by the thousands of attorneys who have signed onto LDAD's ethics complaints. Federal judges are acting, too. This year in Rhode Island, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that the government's traditional presumption of good faith “no longer holds” and referred the Justice Department lawyers before her to the court's disciplinary committee.

Ensuring that the bedrock principles of our system of government, including good faith, the truth, and the rule of law, are upheld requires constant vigilance, a clear-eyed view of right and wrong, and a dedication to holding those who breach these principles accountable. The signers of the Declaration envisioned a country founded on the rule of law, not the law of the ruler. They signed their names to it. All of us, especially lawyers, have a responsibility – and an opportunity – to do the same.

Evan Falchuk is a member of the board of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

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.


Read More

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mail-in ballots sitting in trays.

Mail-in ballots sit in trays before being sorted at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters office in San Jose, California, on Oct. 13, 2020.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

U.S. Postal Service Failed to Properly Handle Some Ballots During This Year’s Primary Elections, Audit Finds

Some U.S. Postal Service facilities failed to properly handle ballots during this year’s primary elections, according to a new audit from the agency’s Office of Inspector General. Election experts say the findings call into question the agency’s ability to meet even greater demands for the November election that are under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The audit, which is dated Sept. 4 but has not been previously reported, found a lack of training for post office staff on how to properly and expeditiously handle mail ballots, deficiencies in how ballots were tracked and errors leading to delays, all of which risked ballots having incorrect postmarks or otherwise arriving late to election officials, which could lead to their rejection.

Keep ReadingShow less