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

​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