Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

​Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe

Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on October 13, 2026 in Ithaca, New York.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Sexual Violence Requires More Than Legal Accountability

In the wake of public attention to the Cornell fraternity alleged gang-rape, headlines resound with statements of concern and calls for greater accountability. These calls are not new. They have followed countless incidents of sexual violence, whether on a college campus, in connection with work, or within an intimate relationship. Despite decades of law and policy reform, sexual violence continues to run rampant. While law and policy reform are sorely needed, we will not see long-lasting change unless we address what accountability truly means. Our collective response should aim for a world where no one would ever think it was ok to commit, condone, or be a passive witness to sexual violence, never mind that it would be ok to send the kind of text messages that were allegedly exchanged at the Cornell fraternity where the rape allegedly took place.

As policymakers consider reform, a comprehensive approach to accountability should consider the known limitations of criminal and civil justice systems. Problems with the criminal legal system are legion, both within and beyond sexual violence cases. These include racially discriminatory application of laws criminalizing sexual violence, that, for example, have led to harsher punishment when the accused is a person of color and lesser punishment when the survivor is a person of color. Survivors continue to be doubted and subjected to biases and stereotypes, including that survivors lie about their experience, that they somehow invited the violence, or act with self-interest or ulterior motive when coming forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

From the Gilded Age to Citizens United, discover how recent Supreme Court rulings empower mega-donors, reshape party spending, and impact American democracy.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Rulings Help the GOP

American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.

In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.

Keep ReadingShow less
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