Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Rule of Law Is Simple—and Essential to American Democracy

Equal, predictable, and transparent rules are the backbone of a functioning democracy.

Opinion

Judge's hand holding wooden hammer

A lawyer breaks down 'rule of law' using everyday analogies—sports, board games—to explain why recent government actions threaten this founding principle.

naruecha jenthaisong/Getty Images

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.

Before the first No Kings rally last year, I carefully hand-lettered a sign that I thought perfectly encapsulated the day's theme. On one side, it read “IN THIS COUNTRY, THE RULE OF LAW IS KING." On the other, it read, "A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT OF MEN (John Adams)." I carried my sign proudly, certain that it would be a big hit. But the only reaction I got was someone asking me, “Are you a lawyer?” I wonder what gave me away.


Sometimes I forget that not everyone thinks the way lawyers do. Attorneys venerate the rule of law. We are acutely aware that 250 years ago, our founders – many of whom were lawyers themselves – created a nation grounded in the principle that all people and institutions, including the government itself, are accountable to the law. Indeed, we swear an oath to uphold that principle. That’s why so many of us have been in a state of constant outrage for the past 18 months, as we’ve watched the Trump administration persistently twist, ignore, and put itself above the law.

Those without legal training, however, may not share our outrage. They may find the term “rule of law” arcane, abstract, or disconnected from their daily lives. They may not understand why we’re so upset.

So, we need to do a better job of explaining ourselves. As the custodians of our nation’s foundational principle, lawyers must make clear that “rule of law” is not a technical legal concept. It is a set of straightforward ideas about fundamental fairness that everyone can agree on.

It’s actually pretty simple.

“Rule of law” means that you can’t do things the rules don’t allow.

A soccer player can’t touch the ball with their hands. An uncrowned checker can’t move backward. In the same way, it violates the rule of law when the president exercises powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, such as waging an unauthorized war or refusing to spend money that Congress has appropriated.

"Rule of law" means that everyone is subject to the same rules.

A baseball umpire must enforce the same strike zone for both teams. If one Monopoly player gets $200 for passing Go, then the other players do too. Similarly, it violates the rule of law to prosecute James Comey for posting a photograph of shells in the shape of “86 47” while pardoning people who stormed the Capitol brandishing weapons and chanting “Hang Mike Pence.” It violates the rule of law to cancel federal grants for clean energy projects in states that voted for Harris but not in states that voted for Trump.

"Rule of law" means that the rules don’t change in the middle of the game.

Everyone knows that in football, you can’t move the goalposts after kickoff. That’s why it violates the rule of law when an immigrant who has been following the steps to obtain legal status is suddenly detained at an immigration appointment. It violates the rule of law when universities that have been receiving federal grants for scientific or medical research are threatened with the loss of those grants if they don’t change their policies regarding campus protests or diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“Rule of law” means that you can’t buy special treatment from those in authority.

Obviously, a team can’t bribe a referee to get favorable calls. A Jeopardy contestant can’t pay Ken Jennings to slip them the answers. Equally obviously, it violates the rule of law when Trump donors receive no-bid government contracts or regulatory approval for their questionable business transactions. It violates the rule of law when countries that lavishly gift Trump receive tariff relief.

"Rule of law" means that you can't be punished for exercising your rights.

Under the First Amendment, you can’t be penalized for belonging to a particular church or club or for expressing a particular opinion. In the same way, it violates the rule of law to deny a law firm access to federal courthouses because its lawyers have represented clients that Trump doesn't like. It violates the rule of law to threaten a TV station’s broadcast license because the station declines to air one of Trump’s speeches.

"Rule of law" means that before being punished, you get a chance to state your case.

If you get a parking ticket at a broken meter, you can challenge it. Athletes can request video review of unfavorable calls. Clearly, then, it violates the rule of law to send people to a notorious prison in El Salvador on the ground that they are members of Tren de Aragua without allowing them to show that they do not belong to that gang.

Lawyers describe the rule of law using terms like “separation of powers,” “equal protection,” and “due process.” At its root, however, the rule of law is about being governed by fair, transparent, and evenly applied rules, and not by the whims and selfish interests of the rulers. That principle, on which our nation was founded 250 years ago, is something that everyone should be prepared to fight for.


Arlene Rosenberg is a retired lawyer and a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.


Read More

​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less