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

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

Rubén Rocha Moya, governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, left, with then-President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, center, and then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2024. The U.S. has charged Rocha with drug corruption, but Sheinbaum has refused to arrest him.

Rashide Frias/AFP via Getty Images

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

After months of U.S.-Mexico tensions sparked by the Trump administration’s threats to strike unilaterally at Mexican drug traffickers, the two governments are heading for a potentially more serious confrontation over President Claudia Sheinbaum’s refusal to arrest Mexican officials charged in the United States with drug corruption.

U.S. Justice Department officials have yet to present a full picture of their evidence against 10 current and former Mexican officials, whose indictments were announced on April 29. They include the governor of Sinaloa state, Rubén Rocha Moya, an ally of the president and a prominent figure in her leftist political party.

Keep Reading Show less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep Reading Show less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep Reading Show less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep Reading Show less