Lawyers warn Trump poses greatest threat to rule of law

A new survey of legal experts, including federal judges and professors, warns the rule of law is under tremendous stress, with many saying President Trump presents the greatest threat in decades and that federal officials often fail to comply with court orders

For many Americans, the rule of law is something you assume will hold—like traffic lights working when you need them. But in interviews and a newly released survey of legal experts, that sense of stability is cracking.

Sometimes it feels as though the thin. black-robed boundary between a functioning democracy and a full-on Trump autocracy is the only thing standing in the way. Yet the survey’s central message is blunt: the judiciary’s ability to check presidential power may be straining under the weight of how aggressively executive authority is being used and how often court rulings are treated as negotiable.

The poll—conducted by Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan academic group that monitors the health and resilience of American democracy, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law—captured a broad alarm among people who live closest to the legal system.

“The nation is strong as is its commitment to the rule of law,” said one appellate judge, a Republican appointee. “The current president presents the greatest threat in decades.”

The survey was conducted between mid-February and early March. It anonymously surveyed 21 federal judges, 113 lawyers, 193 law professors, 652 political scientists, and a nationally representative sample of 2,750 Americans.

What stood out to UCLA’s Rick Hasen. who directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project. was that agreement cut across professional roles and ideology. “Across the ideological spectrum and across judges. lawyers and law professors. there was considerable agreement that the rule of law in the U.S. is under tremendous stress,” Hasen said. He added that the consensus suggests “a real risk to democracy.”.

Most legal experts, the survey found, believe Trump is using executive power excessively. A majority of experts also doubted that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would handle cases involving the Trump administration impartially.

The concerns weren’t limited to courtroom outcomes. Experts expressed worry about politicized law enforcement—Trump seeking to persecute perceived enemies—along with executive branch overreach and the failure of Congress or the Supreme Court to do more to rein in what the experts see as rogue presidential behavior.

Numbers within the survey pointed to an even more immediate breakdown: 8 in 10 of respondents said federal officials fail to comply with court orders “somewhat or very often,” and nearly 9 in 10 said political appointees in Trump’s Justice Department mislead federal judges “somewhat or very often.”

Talk about contempt of court, the survey’s findings landed in the minds of many as more than a procedural flaw. It was a warning sign that the system of checks and balances depends on something far more fragile than the law on paper.

There were splits, as the survey itself reflects. Conservatives and liberals differed in how they assessed threats to the rule of law. The study defined legal conservatives as those saying the Supreme Court should base rulings on its understanding of what the Constitution meant as originally written. It defined liberals—who made up most respondents—as those saying the court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means in current times.

Conservatives were more likely than liberals to say former President Biden posed a greater threat to the rule of law than Trump. Liberals, by contrast, were more likely than conservatives to see evidence of Trump politicizing the Justice Department.

The survey also showed differences between the people most steeped in legal work and the public. Legal experts expressed more concern about Trump’s excesses and threats to the rule of law. Hasen said that’s partly because they’re the ones who see the system more directly. where the consequences of legal strain show up faster.

Hasen put it this way: “it’s one of these background things that really matters.” Most people don’t encounter the legal system daily the way they might encounter gasoline prices or groceries. But he offered a concrete warning through a hypothetical—one meant to show how corruption in justice changes behavior outside the courthouse.

Imagine, Hasen said, a person with a dispute with a neighbor who takes it to small claims court. If the judge makes a decision not based on the merits of the case but on whether the judge was friends with one party—or didn’t like people who were similar to one party—then the harm spreads. Now widen that kind of corrupted, perverted system of justice “writ large.”.

“When people know that the government can successfully seek retribution from people who criticize it, people will be less likely to criticize the government,” Hasen said, leaving the country worse off by muzzling those who would hold elected leaders accountable.

He also described a second scenario: after rioters overran the U.S. Capitol and tried to steal an election, instead of being punished, they received cash payouts from the federal government. The question becomes obvious in his framing: what incentive would there be to follow the law?

For Hasen, the lesson is not only about what the courts must do, but about what people can demand from politics when they feel the system slipping.

People, he said, can insist that elected representatives take steps “to assure that the rule of law will be followed.” They can also push for a government that “play[s] favorites” or seeks “retribution against perceived enemies” to stop doing so.

In the end, the survey’s findings circle back to one moment Americans will all recognize: voting. Hasen said “that’s the power people have, come election time,” and warned that “there are lots of things riding on the outcome in November,” including “the sanctity and integrity of our legal system.”

Bear that in mind when you cast your ballot.

rule of law Trump Supreme Court federal judges court orders Justice Department political appointees UCLA Safeguarding Democracy Project Bright Line Watch November election