Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep Reading Show less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep Reading Show less
The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections
Rawpixel/Getty

The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections

The Trump administration has expended significant resources trying to meddle in elections ahead of the midterms. This coordinated campaign includes attempts to limit who can vote, wrestle away states’ authority over elections, and undermine public confidence in election outcomes. So far, virtually everything the administration has tried has been blocked by courts, failed in Congress, or simply fizzled out.

Currently, the administration is 0–21 in its court cases seeking to amass state voter data. In dozens of states, election officials from both parties have refused to turn over their complete voter rolls, which contain confidential personal information, to the Justice Department. Federal courts from Arizona to Maine have thrown out the department’s lawsuits, ruling that the federal government lacks the power to force states to hand over this data on a mass scale.

Keep Reading Show less
The Erosion of Judicial Integrity
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

The Erosion of Judicial Integrity

The partisanship of the Roberts Supreme Court Republicans violates the neutrality central to the rule of law's legitimacy. Moreover, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, viewed avaricious oligarchs and seditious demagogues as the two gravest threats to democracy. They would doubtlessly view the Roberts Republicans – with rulings institutionalizing oligarchic pay-to-play while embracing Trump’s authoritarianism - as another grave threat.

The Rule of Law Survived One Judicial Coup

Keep Reading Show less