Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Lawyers Must Reaffirm Their Oath to Defend the Constitution

A lawyer’s oath has no exceptions—and reaffirming it is essential to defending the Constitution.

Opinion

American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

Getty Images

Every lawyer admitted to practice in the United States takes a formal oath to support the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of the profession. In recent years, bar associations and courts around the country have held voluntary oath reaffirmation ceremonies, inviting lawyers to publicly renew their commitments and reaffirm the profession's responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

Between us, we have taken the oath eight times - having been admitted to practice law in six jurisdictions, across five states, and both having organized oath reaffirmation ceremonies in our respective Virginia hometowns.


Why would lawyers who hold law licenses stand in courthouses and take their oaths again?

To Reflect on our Commitment

What do our oaths ask of us?

Lawyers, of all people, know how to qualify obligations. We layer our clients’ contracts with conditions, exceptions, and standards. Yet our oaths contain none of these.

We promise to support the Constitution—no strings attached.

Different areas of practice reveal our obligations in different ways. For lawyers who support business transactions, the legal infrastructure is so dependable that it is easy to take for granted. Every commercial transaction rests on the assumption that contracts will be interpreted fairly and enforced by independent courts.

For others, the rule of law may arrive attached to a person. Someone calls with a problem. You think: I would really like to help.

Then the other thoughts come in. But the case won’t make money. It could be seen as political. This could upset powerful people in my community.

Sometimes the reasons not to get involved can seem to drown out your own ethical compass.

To Honor What We Inherited

As America reflects on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, lawyers have a particular reason to consider what we have inherited and what we are responsible for preserving.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers - they risked charges of treason, carrying the punishment of death, to sign their names to the grievances against King George III. They still signed and pledged “[their] Lives, [their] Fortunes, and [their] sacred Honor.”

Preparing for the Harrisonburg-Rockingham Bar Association’s oath reaffirmation ceremony, president Nicole Faut (one of the co-authors of this article) highlighted the Association’s July 12, 1943 minutes. They recorded that the Association had 26 active members in 1942. After the United States entered World War II, more than 34 percent of Association members abandoned their practices and entered the service of their country—some going on to die in that service.

It is tempting to admire this country’s history from a safe distance behind a desk. The Association lawyers in 1943 did not know themselves as historical figures. Neither do we. They had practices. Clients. Families. They made choices without knowing how it would end, and so must we.

To Come Together

Today, we are witnessing attacks on the institutions charged with administering and maintaining our constitutional republic.

Just one example is the federal government using executive orders to punish law firms associated with disfavored lawyers or clients. Federal judges have repeatedly held those orders unconstitutional—and the federal government has been unperturbed.

The questions lawyers in the United States face today are critical: whether we can represent unpopular clients without governmental retaliation; whether courts can constrain executive action; and whether legal obligations remain obligations when power would prefer otherwise.

We must remember that the legal profession can enable abuses. Lawyers and judges in Nazi Germany helped bend legal institutions toward the regime through decrees, legislation, and reinterpretation. They helped give an increasingly lawless and brutal system the appearance of legitimacy.

But a profession acting together can also make resistance to attacks on our Constitution ordinary rather than heroic; rather like our oaths. Institutions - firms, bar associations, and other professional organizations - distribute courage. When the profession acts together to defend the rule of law, no individual lawyer must bear the entire cost of doing so alone - and seeing the cumulative impact of our efforts can grow momentum.

To Meet This Moment

Most of our tests will not look heroic.

They will arrive in inboxes and intake calls. In the moments between, I should do something and all the sensible reasons not to.

The “somethings” need not be limited to our practice: LDAD volunteers submit comments to proposed federal rules, speak at community organizations about Constitutional rights, organize democracy-focused community art installations, donate money when time feels scarce, and alert friends and family to what we, as a nation, stand to lose.

Lawyers can disagree fiercely about politics and law. Constitutional government wants us to do that.

The oath asks us something different. It asks: what will we do when the Constitution becomes inconvenient to defend?

Whether you were sworn in decades ago or just this year, our oaths are still binding: no political exceptions, no client exceptions, no exception for waiting until someone else goes first.

We take our oaths as individuals, but none of us is alone. Take action, in community with other lawyers, to find hope and agency.

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.

Nicole Faut and Amanda Pollard: Nicole Faut practices primarily in plaintiff-side employment and civil rights, and is the immediate past president of the Harrisonburg-Rockingham Bar Association. Amanda Pollard has practiced corporate and transactional law for more than a decade, across private practice and in-house roles.


Read More

​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
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