Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Rule of Law: Why it matters

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

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits
How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images

Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, 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 Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches—particularly in how federal courts can respond to presidential actions.

Keep ReadingShow less