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

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
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​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