Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

New poll reminds us that the rule of law is on the ballot

Flags of the United States hanging in front of the facade of a building
Colors Hunter - Chasseur de Couleurs/Getty Images

Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, is of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

On Sept. 17, the highly regarded World Justice Project released a detailed report reflecting some major good news amidst a continuing modest slide in Americans’ trust in our institutions. Encouragingly, WJP’s survey of voters shows that more than 90 percent of Americans in both parties — an unheard-of polling number — believe that preserving the rule of law is important or essential.

That vital fact tells us that, contrary to skeptics’ views, the concept of the rule of law is not too abstract to influence American voters in the upcoming election. People care very much about it, and the evidence of declining trust in our basic institutions suggests that the rule of law can play a potent role in the election.


The one political party committed to the rule of law can profitably focus on the rule of law crisis — along with kitchen table issues — as the presidential campaign enters peak season.

WJP produces the biennial Rule of Law Index, ranking countries on their citizens' perceptions of compliance with principles essential to democratic government and individual freedom. Last year’s index ranked the United States 26th out of 142 countries in a world described as being in a “rule of law recession.” Since then, Americans do not think things have gotten better, and they are concerned.

This sharp awareness of how short we are falling shows up throughout the report. Accountability is the backbone of the rule of law, and the WJP/YouGov polling results show a plummet in the last decade from 60 percent to 35 percent in the proportion of people who agree that high-ranking officials are likely to face consequences for breaking the law. Similarly, people’s confidence in Congress and the courts to act as a check on excessive executive power dropped markedly during the period from 2016 to 2024, though both still are in the 60 percent range.

Questions directed more generally to the independence and fairness of the justice system brought answers reflecting some decline in trust over the last few years. Two thirds (down from 80 percent in 2013) still believe that the courts guarantee everyone a fair trial, while broader questions about the independence and lack of bias of judges yield positive answers from a bit less than half of those questioned. Trust in other institutions, including the media, prosecutors, national and local government officials, and the police, has also eroded modestly during this period, and, except for the media (now 38 percent) generally hover close to or just above the 50 percent level.

Notably, in the face of these results, the report also records a significant rise in Americans’ perception of citizen power to step up and check otherwise unchecked executive action. Forty-nine percent of respondents — up from 30 percent in 2021 — report some confidence that individual Americans themselves can play a key role helping to stop abuses of executive power.

This is a tribute to individual citizens who have become active and organized, including countless people who are discussing these issues with friends and neighbors, and a great many who have spoken out publicly. They include a growing number of prominent Republicans like former Vice President Dick Cheney who have made the rule of law the primary issue for them in determining who they will vote for in the upcoming presidential election.

In recent years, numerous groups supported by a broad base of Americans — like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Protect Democracy, States United Democracy Project, the Society for the Rule of Law and Lawyers Defending American Democracy have been fighting to preserve American constitutionalism as it has come under relentless attack. You can safely bet that the 90 percent or more of Americans who accord great value to the rule of law, and the 20 percent rise in citizens’ awareness of our own power, is attributable to individuals’ and groups raising the alarm about what so many took for granted before the current crisis in democracy.

Ultimately the rule of law protects the rights and freedoms of all Americans, including their rights of self-government, and the principle that no one is above or below the law. Power in this country has always derived from the people, and a people organized to protect ourselves is the ultimate guardrail of our freedom. The WJP report brings the welcome news that nearly all Americans care deeply about the principles the country is based on and they want to see our system of democracy and individual rights preserved.

The nation is now embroiled in a national election where the stakes are nothing less than our most fundamental constitutional principles and norms, and the individual rights they preserve. Given that the WJP survey of voters shows that more than 90 percent of Americans in both parties believe that preserving the rule of law is important or essential, it is surprising that only one set of candidates has fully embraced the rule of law as the determination of the election results. Our citizens deserve this being front and center in the campaigns of all candidates for office whether they are Democrats, Republicans or independents.

It is up to us, as Benjamin Franklin famously said in 1787, to keep the Republic the founders gave us.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less