Bob Schwartz

Tag: rule of law

What exactly is the rule of law?

You have heard the term “rule of law” used every day, many times a day, by lawyers and non-lawyers in these times.

You thought you knew what they meant by it, they thought they knew what they meant by it. In general, you and them may have been beneficially close to the mark. But is close enough?

Here is one of many definitions:


The rule of law is a foundational principle of governance that holds that all individuals, organizations, and government entities are equally subject to and accountable under the law. At its core, this concept ensures that laws are clear, publicly promulgated, fairly enforced, and independently adjudicated.

The rule of law encompasses several key elements:

  1. Supremacy of law – No one is above the law, including government officials, legislators, and heads of state. All are equally subject to legal constraints and consequences.
  2. Legal certainty – Laws must be clear, stable, and predictable, allowing people to understand what is permitted and prohibited.
  3. Equality before the law – All persons are treated equally regardless of social status, wealth, or political position.
  4. Separation of powers – Authority is distributed among different branches of government (typically executive, legislative, and judicial) to prevent concentration of power.
  5. Independent judiciary – Courts must be impartial and free from external influence to interpret and apply laws fairly.
  6. Due process – Legal procedures must be fair, transparent, and respect fundamental rights.
  7. Protection of human rights – Basic rights and freedoms must be enshrined in and protected by law.

Historically, the concept has evolved from ancient civilizations through documents like the Magna Carta (1215), which limited the English monarch’s power, to modern constitutional democracies. The rule of law stands in contrast to rule by law, where law becomes merely a tool for rulers to exercise power rather than a constraint on that power.

When functioning properly, the rule of law provides stability, predictability, and protection against arbitrary government action. It creates the foundation for economic development, social cohesion, and democratic governance by ensuring that power is exercised according to established rules rather than personal whim.

Claude Sonnet 3.7


My legal education began with what was essentially a philosophy course. Professors Bill Bishin and Chris Stone had created a course at USC Law, and later created a textbook, called Law, Language and Ethics (the textbook contains 1,356 pages). My law school, relatively new at the time, had the wisdom to hire Bishin and to include him and this book in our first-year curriculum.

What I learned, and have never forgotten, and what every lawyer knows or should, and what every non-lawyer who comments, knowledgeably or not, about the law knows or should: law is complex and encompasses much more than rules.


For Bishin, LL&E evinced “this law school’s determination to offer a course dramatizing the relevance and utility of significant philosophical thought in the solutions of problems faced every day by judges, lawyers, legislators. Bishin understood that in all legal contests, “disputants are really arguing about the nature of reality, the problem of knowledge, the functions of language, the requisites of morality, the meaning of the good life, the ends of society.” (USC Law Magazine)


We live in a short-form cursory culture. Those who publicly talk about the “rule of law”, no matter how brilliant, whether lawyers, politicians, analysts, don’t usually have the time to go deep. Watchers and listeners, smart or not, don’t usually have the motivation or time to go deep.

But the next time you hear or say “rule of law’ take a beat or two to think about what you do or don’t actually understand, beyond the three-word slogan.

© 2025 by Bob Schwartz

The latest sign that the rule of law in America is endangered. With maybe a glimmer of hope (yes, the lawyers may save us yet!).

Yesterday I reported about an open letter signed by hundreds of former federal prosecutors, a letter saying that given the substantial evidence in the Mueller report, each of them would have indicted Trump for obstruction of justice–except for the Department of Justice guidance that a sitting president not be indicted. Those lawyers who elaborated said it wasn’t even close–that Trump could have been indicted and  convicted for multiple crimes.

At the time it was first released, 300 or so former Department of Justice lawyers, some with as much as 41 years of service, including many former  U.S Attorneys, working in Republican and Democratic administrations from Nixon through Trump, had signed. As of this morning, that number of signers had grown to 680 and is still growing. These lawyers represent over 8,500 years of nonpartisan service in the cause of American justice. In the cause of the rule of law.

The story got some attention for a few hours yesterday, and then sank, as critical stories have a tendency to do in these critical days. Maybe the news media don’t think Americans are interested in this sort of “inside baseball” technical legal issue or that Americans are tired of the whole Mueller thing. Maybe many Americans aren’t interested in this. Maybe Americans think that lawyers are liars who will say anything, including lawyers who work for the previously most respected legal organization in America–the Department of Justice.

A brief note about Sir Thomas More, the Chancellor for Henry VIII. More is celebrated in multiple realms, both religious and legal. He was named by lawyers as the lawyer of the last millennium for his unwavering stand for the rule of law and conscience over selfish motives, convenience or the wishes of a king. He was famously executed for his conscientious resistance.

In Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons, More explains his steadfast allegiance to the rule of law. When the laws are cut down or ignored one by one, what will be left for us?:

ROPER:  So now you’d give the Devil the benefit of law!

THOMAS MORE: Yes.  What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER:  I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

THOMAS MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil himself turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?  Yes, I’d give the Devil himself the benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.