Stanford Law School (SLS) faculty signed an open letter condemning President Donald Trump’s recent attacks on the “rule of law” March 31 The letter, which was signed by 50 SLS faculty members, cited political threats to judges, the use of the Justice Department to pursue personal agendas and Trump’s retaliation toward law firms who “represent clients and causes he doesn’t like.”
The latter point references Trump’s issuing of a memorandum March 21 directing the attorney general and secretary of homeland security to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States.”
Since Trump issued the memo, several law firms that sought to sue Trump for various legal transgressions have cooperated with the administration, promising hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pro bono legal aid to the administration.
Law professor Mark Lemley B.A. ’88, the letter’s principle drafter, wrote to The Daily that the open letter was generated in response to “attacks on law firms for representing people Donald Trump personally dislikes.”
“The ability to represent unpopular political causes is central to the rule of law,” wrote Lemley.
Mark Kelman, the vice dean of SLS and a signatory of the letter, said that the specific attacks on law firms and universities are only “instantiations of a broader problem.” Recent attacks on lawmakers constitute a threat to the nation’s last line of defense for democracy, according to Lemley.
“The Trump administration is clearly aiming to replace our constitutional democracy with an autocratic regime,” wrote Lemley. “So far, it has primarily been the courts that are holding him back. There is a very real risk as he begins to attack lawyers and courts that the last guardrails of our democracy will disappear.”
Kelman said that although some of Trump’s actions, such as skirting judicial orders and using the Justice Department to advance political agendas, repeat political history, the current administration is “the first regime seeking to establish what amounts to an authoritarian dictatorship.”
“[The current administration] really is unique and terrifying,” Kelman said.
The letter cites several actions taken by SLS faculty to fight against Trump’s attacks, such as leading a lawsuit on behalf of government employees whose personal information was unlawfully seized by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), drafting an amicus brief defending Perkins Coie, another law firm targeted by the President, and creating a Rule of Law project demonstrating parallels between the Trump administration and early autocratic regimes in other countries.
While these actions could risk government retaliation, Lemley views his advocacy for the rule of law as a responsibility associated with his position.
“It is certainly possible that those of us who speak up will be targeted for our views,” said Lemley. “But I believe one of the responsibilities that comes with a tenured position at a place like Stanford is to speak the truth when other people are afraid to.”
These actions from top law firms to offer concessions to the Trump administration have been viewed by many as a way to maximize profit and ride the turbulence of executive attacks. But Kelman said that even if corporate directors were not free to take moral stands at the cost of stock value, law firm partners, who are shareholders, are “morally entitled to not profit maximize.”
The Daily has reached out to the University for comment.