LIVE: Lawyers STRIKE BACK Against the Trump Administration with the RULE OF LAW

Law Day, established in 1958, has historically celebrated the rule of law. However, since the 'era of Trump,' it has transformed into a critical occasion for lawyers and judges to publicly reaffirm their oaths and commitment to the Constitution, directly opposing what they describe as a 'lawless presidency' and an 'authoritarian regime.' This shift underscores a perceived urgent need for the legal community to actively defend foundational democratic principles.

Michael Popok states, 'at no other time except during the era of Trump is it so important for lawyers, judges... to come together... to oppose a lawless... presidency that is against the rule of law.' Charles Jung adds that the rule of law 'is what sets our country apart' and ensures 'the law applies equally to everybody.' Tracy Fightlo notes, 'We are not watching a threat on our horizon. We are living inside of it.'

Speakers detailed specific instances of what they consider executive overreach and attacks on the judiciary. These include executive orders targeting law firms for representing clients adverse to the administration, threats of impeachment against judges for lawful rulings, and hundreds of court orders being treated as optional. This behavior is characterized as 'executive nullification' and a direct path to the demise of a republic, demanding a collective, active defense from the legal community.

Tracy Fightlo highlights, 'We have watched executive orders go out targeting law firms... for representing clients adverse to this administration. We have watched judges threatened with impeachment for issuing lawful rulings. We have watched court orders, hundreds of them, treated as optional.' Ricardo Anzalda refers to this as 'executive nullification' and states, 'treating court orders as optional, that's how republics die.'

The core message is that lawyers have an active, ongoing duty to 'support and defend' the Constitution, not merely to care about it. This extends beyond traditional legal practice to civic engagement, pro bono work, and public advocacy. The erosion of the rule of law is presented as an 'enterprise risk' for companies, requiring chief legal officers to conduct 'political risk due diligence' even on the lawyers they hire. This necessitates a 'season of professional renewal' where the profession speaks with one voice.

Charles Jung states, 'supporting the constitution that's an active verb.' Tracy Fightlo asserts, 'This is not political. This is professional. This is about the oath we took.' Sandy Pek notes, 'The action plan appropriately framed the erosion of the rule of law as an enterprise risk for companies, particularly the threats and attacks on judicial independence.'

There is a strong call for accountability for prosecutors and other legal officials who are perceived to be pushing politically motivated cases or disregarding legal principles. Speakers specifically named individuals and suggested that state bar associations should investigate and potentially revoke licenses for such conduct, arguing that this would deter future abuses and reinforce the integrity of the legal system.

Congressman Glenn Ivy states, 'you need to look hold the prosecutors who push these cases out, we need to hold them accountable, too.' He adds, 'Pam Bondi's getting to know a lot more about it than she did before. And rightly so.' Senator Mazie Hirono describes the Department of Justice as 'a department of retribution and revenge.'

The Supreme Court's majority is criticized for undercutting constitutional principles and rolling back hard-won rights, specifically citing a recent decision that allegedly 'trampled upon the hard fought blood salt voting rights of millions of voters of color.' This perceived judicial activism further fuels the call for lawyers and citizens to engage in 'good trouble'—active, nonviolent resistance and advocacy—to protect and restore democratic norms, emphasizing that a court decision is 'not the end of the story.'

Phil Breast notes, 'the court's majority has undercut these same principles, even the principle emblazened above the court's doors.' Barbara Arwine states, 'JUST TWO DAYS AGO, this court issued an opinion that reversed decades of judicial jurist rules AND THEY TRAMPLED trampled upon the hard fought blood salt voting rights of millions of voters of color.' She concludes with, 'what we need to do IS GET INTO GOOD TROUBLE.'