Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Rule of Law: Why it matters

Opinion

Rule of Law: Why it matters

A courthouse.

Getty Images, StanRohrer

“Rule of Law.” I remember my first in-depth conversation about the phrase while working in Latin America—which says a lot since I took that job immediately AFTER law school.

The concept is, of course, integral to the U.S. Constitution, our founding documents, and our ideals—but I’d simply not heard the phrase, “rule of law”, used so often. Instead, we'd focused on branches of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.


In other words, we talked about the form and structure of implementation, not the broader concept. The broader concept of no individual being above the law, regardless of level of office or level of wealth, was in the air we breathed—we deeply took the concept for granted, so much that we didn’t even name it.

Then, outside of my own country, I began to see what had once been invisible. Once I saw it, I began to wonder: “Where does one even begin to implement respect for the rule of law if widespread respect doesn’t already exist?”

We take for granted that we stop at traffic lights because order means safety; our trip may be slower, but our odds of arriving alive are greater—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else. We take for granted that we pay our taxes because they fund the sidewalks we walk on and the bridges we drive over. Those taxes mean our savings are smaller but also that the support we may need someday will be there—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

We sign leases and contracts because we trust the other party will uphold their end of the bargain—and we’ll have recourse if they don’t. Yes, we’ve reached a point where most people agree to terms on their phones without reading a word but, generally, we want to be able to trust agreements will be upheld and enforced—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

We respect other people's property, to borrow a phrase from Naughty By Nature. The respect for property—physical and financial—allows us a sense of security, a foundational element in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When we feel secure in our property, we can focus our attention, creativity, and finances on bigger matters—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

When a crime is committed, we want to have a place to turn to report that and know that our bodies and our property will be defended. If we are accused of a crime, we want to know that our bodies and our property will be defended throughout the process of determining whether or not we’re guilty—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

When we buy food, we want to be pretty darn sure that food won’t sicken or kill us. Sure, we could grow everything ourselves but the vast majority of us rely on the current supply chains and, particularly during and after the pandemic, the convenience of restaurant delivery. Upholding food safety standards promotes public health—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

We respect public spaces—not smoking on planes or in hospitals anymore, not defecating on a sidewalk or office hallway, not exposing ourselves on public transportation. One could try to argue those rules are inconvenient but they promote public health and safety—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

Many years after my time in Costa Rica, I worked in Liberia and saw messages on faded posters encouraging people to pay their taxes. From an outsider’s perspective, the contrast between those printed pleas and the widespread agreement (and yes, dread) of April 15 felt stark. While tax compliance rates in Liberia have inched up slightly over decades of effort, they remain low, compared to global standards. I share this, not to pick on the Land of Liberty, but simply because it’s one of MANY examples of how hard it is to build a system and nationwide mindset that aren’t already in place.

Rule. Of. Law. The term is ancient, as is the desire to have systems that are transparent, fair, and accessible. Usage of the term grew, following World War II, as the world debated governance structures, particularly in efforts to fight corruption, ensure accountability, and build spaces that are good for you, me, and everyone else. We don’t have physical enforcement for civil court decisions because we have the rule of law. We don't allow a single ruler to enact or change laws because we have the rule of law.

Losing the rule of law would be like losing the air we breathe and that would be bad for you, me, and everyone else.

Piper Hendricks is the founder and CEO of Stories Change Power. Piper supports hearts and minds that need to reach hearts and minds. Through Stories Change Power, she equips people who want to make a difference in their neighborhoods, communities, and country. Stories Change Power provides the tools, strategy, and network to be an effective, empathetic, and trusted advocate for a just and peaceful world for everyone - no exceptions.

Read More

A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep ReadingShow less
An abstract grid wall of shipping containers, unevenly arranged with some jutting out, all decorated in the colors and patterns of the USA flag. A prominent percentage sign overlays the grid.

The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, probing executive authority, rising consumer costs, manufacturing strain, and the future of U.S. trade governance.

Getty Images, J Studios

Tariffs on Trial: The Supreme Court’s Hidden Battle for Balance

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court convened what may be one of the most important trade cases of this generation. Justices across the ideological spectrum carefully probed whether a president may deploy sweeping import duties under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The outcome will resonate well beyond tariffs. It strikes at the heart of how America governs its commerce, regulates its markets, and wields power abroad.

President Trump’s argument rests on a dramatic claim: that persisting trade deficits, surging imports, and what he called a national security crisis tied to opioids and global supply chains justify tariffs of 10% to 50% on nearly all goods from most of the world. The statute invoked was intended for unusual and extraordinary threats—often adversarial regimes, economic warfare, or sanctions—not for broad-based economic measures against friend and foe alike. The justices registered deep doubts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less