[[link removed]]

AS RETIRED US JUDGES, WE’RE NOT USED TO SPEAKING OUT. BUT WE CANNOT
BE SILENT  
[[link removed]]


 

Michael P Donnelly and Robert F Orr
August 2, 2026
The Guardian
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ We joined a recent bus tour of 30 judges, lawyers and advocates
fighting not for any partisan aim, but for the rule of law itself _

The giant gavel of justice at the Ohio Judicial Center in downtown
Columbus, Ohio , by Sam Howzit (CC BY 2.0)

 

Last October, US lawyers, judges and rule-of-law advocates traveled to
Warsaw as guests of the Carter Center. Neither of us was among them.
But when our colleagues returned, their stories inspired us.

They told us about judges and lawyers across central Europe who had
been surveilled, smeared, prosecuted and sometimes jailed for standing
between political power and courts meant to remain independent.

And they kept going.

Poland’s example was especially compelling. When its government
sought greater control over the judiciary, Polish judges put on their
robes and marched through Warsaw. Judges from across Europe joined
them in what became the March of 1,000 Robes.

Then they left their courthouses and traveled through towns and
villages, explaining what an independent judiciary means to a farmer,
shopkeeper, parent or business owner. They talked about law not as an
abstraction, but as protection against arbitrary power.

How do we defeat authoritarianism? By building a sense of belonging.
Read more
[[link removed]]

They understood a truth Americans can no longer overlook: judicial
independence cannot survive merely because judges believe in it. The
public must understand why it matters.

That lesson brought us on to a bus.

Last month, shortly after the United States celebrated its 250th
birthday, the Justice in Motion tour traveled from western
Pennsylvania through Ohio and into Michigan. Thirty sitting and
retired judges, lawyers and advocates handed out pocket constitutions,
met students and asked a question Americans do not consider often
enough: what does the rule of law mean in everyday life, and what
happens when we take it for granted?

In Columbus, we did something neither of us imagined during our years
on the bench. We put on our robes and marched from the federal
courthouse toward the supreme court of Ohio, carrying purple flowers,
an international symbol of judicial independence.

American judges do not ordinarily march in the streets. Nor should
they. The judiciary derives much of its legitimacy from restraint.
Judges do not campaign for particular outcomes or answer criticism
with press conferences. They speak through their decisions. But these
are no ordinary times.

And our Polish colleagues taught us that silence can carry its own
risk.

Our march was not about Democrats or Republicans, nor about defending
particular judges or decisions. It was about defending the system that
allows legal disagreements to be resolved according to law rather than
political power.

One of us was elected to the supreme court of Ohio as a Democrat. The
other was elected to the supreme court of North Carolina as a
Republican and is now an independent. Through two long careers, we
have disagreed about plenty.

That is precisely the point.

The rule of law is not a partisan possession.

Both sides enter a courtroom with the right to be heard. Judges must
apply the law to the facts without regard to which party is more
powerful, popular or politically useful.

Sometimes judges get it wrong. That is why we have appellate courts.
Sometimes courts issue decisions that elected officials or citizens
strongly dislike. That is unavoidable in a constitutional democracy.

The answer is appeal, legislation where constitutionally permissible,
or constitutional amendment. It cannot be intimidation, retaliation
for unpopular rulings or the suggestion that compliance with lawful
court orders is optional.

Once adherence to judicial decisions depends upon whether the
politically powerful agree with them, we have left the rule of law
behind.

In Wooster, Ohio, about 150 people gathered across from the historic
courthouse. The discussion was not about red America or blue America.
It was about ordinary life.

The rule of law is why you can deposit money in a bank and expect it
to be there tomorrow. It is why contracts mean something, property can
be protected and an individual citizen can enter a courthouse and
challenge the government.

These protections seem ordinary only because generations before us
built institutions strong enough to make them ordinary. When the rule
of law works, it is almost invisible.

Judges are trained – rightly – to exercise restraint. During our
years on the bench, we spoke through our rulings. That tradition is
essential to maintaining confidence in an impartial judiciary.

But restraint should not be confused with silence about the survival
of the institution itself.

When judges are threatened because of their rulings; when an adverse
decision is answered not with an appeal but with demands for
retaliation; when courts are judged legitimate only when they produce
politically desired outcomes, those who understand the system have an
obligation to explain what is being lost.

Our Polish friends understood this before we did. Their circumstances
differ from ours, and comparisons should be made carefully. But the
lesson travels well.

The rule of law does not defend itself. Neither does an independent
judiciary. Constitutions are pieces of paper unless citizens and
public officials possess the courage and habits necessary to honor
them.

Division is a threat to resistance. Here’s how to build a stronger
coalition. Read more
[[link removed]]

Four days on a bus will not persuade a nation. The purpose was more
modest: to begin conversations, one community and one citizen at a
time, about institutions Americans have been fortunate enough to take
for granted.

That work belongs not only to judges and lawyers, but to all of us.

The rule of law is not something judges possess. It is something
citizens inherit.

And every generation must decide whether to preserve it.

What’s giving us hope now

JUSTICE ROBERT F ORR (RETIRED): What gives me hope is the scope of
individuals and groups now focusing and talking about the rule of law
and the independence of our judiciary. Our bus trip had a great mix of
backgrounds and experience both in the judges participating and
meeting us at stops as well as the young people who amplified the
message across various media platforms. It’s genuinely a national
movement.

JUSTICE MICHAEL P DONNELLY (RETIRED): What gives me hope is the
genuine appreciation we encountered during the bus tour for the role
of an independent judiciary in protecting individual rights and civil
liberties. The people we met understood that these freedoms, defended
at great sacrifice throughout our history, cannot be taken for granted
– and that each generation must be willing to stand up for them.

*
_Michael P Donnelly is a retired justice of the supreme court of Ohio_

*
_Robert F Orr is a retired justice of the supreme court of North
Carolina. Both participated in the __Justice in Motion_
[[link removed]]_ tour organized by the Democracy
Rising Collaborative and Keep Our Republic_

_The Guardian_ [[link removed]]_ is globally renowned
for its coverage of politics, the environment, science, social
justice, sport and culture. Scroll less and understand more about the
subjects you care about with the Guardian's __brilliant email
newsletters_
[[link removed]]_,
free to your inbox._

* rule of law
[[link removed]]
* judges
[[link removed]]
* Poland
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]