Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

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

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow 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

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less