On Law Day, We Must Defend Independence (op-ed) – By Muhammad U. Faridi, President

On Law Day, We Must Defend Judicial Independence

By Muhammad U. Faridi

Each year on May 1, our country observes Law Day—a civic tradition first proclaimed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958 to celebrate the rule of law as the cornerstone of our democracy. It called on Americans to “vigilantly guard the great heritage of liberty, justice, and equality under law,” and referred to America as “a beacon light for oppressed peoples of the world seeking freedom, justice, and equality for the individual under laws.”

This year, our celebration of the values that sustain our constitutional system must be more than ceremonial. It must be a call to action—to defend one of the most fundamental institutions in a democratic society: an independent judiciary.

Having grown up in Pakistan, I know firsthand the dangers that arise when judges are threatened with retribution for the decisions they make. In such an environment, the law becomes more a tool of those in power than a shield for the vulnerable. Judges who fear for their careers—or their safety—cannot serve as a meaningful check on government overreach. The result is not just the erosion of judicial independence, but the unraveling of democratic norms.

The idea that courts should operate free from political influence is part of America’s fabric. One of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence accused King George III of making judges “dependent on his Will alone” for their salaries and tenure. The founders understood that a judiciary subservient to political power could never guarantee individual rights.

That insight shaped the Constitution. As Hamilton argued in [v]Federalist No. 78, the judiciary must be “truly distinct” from the other branches. Madison warned in Federalist No. 51 that liberty depends on the ability of each branch to resist encroachments from the others. The courts were not intended to mirror popular will or partisan preference. They were designed to interpret the law independently and, when necessary, stand firm against political pressure.

But even the strongest constitutional design depends on the norms that support it—respect for law, belief in legal institutions, and a shared understanding that judges are not political actors. Those norms are under siege.

Today, judges across the country face a troubling increase in personal threats and political pressure. Some rhetoric has moved well beyond criticism into dangerous territory—calls for impeachment based solely on disagreement, efforts to intimidate judges, and even public threats of violence. All of this erodes public confidence and undermines the rule of law.

Just as troubling is the growing disregard by some in the executive branch for the authority of judicial decisions. We should recall that when the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, President Eisenhower made clear that the ruling would be enforced—sending federal troops to uphold the rule of law. In his address from the White House, President Eisenhower reflected that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and insure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts, even, when necessary with all the means at the President’s command.” That act demonstrated the executive’s vital role in affirming judicial authority.

Contrast that with Pakistan, where enforcement of court rulings by the executive branch often depends on political convenience. This selective compliance fuels instability and weakens democratic institutions. It’s alarming to see similar undemocratic tendencies now emerging here, where some executive branch officials question or flout judicial orders. Such defiance strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and the rule of law.

This is not about shielding judges from scrutiny. Judicial opinions should be subject to rigorous analysis and debate. But there is a bright line between criticism and coercion between political disagreement and political punishment, and between rule of law and rule of fear. When elected officials attempt to weaponize impeachment or ignore binding rulings, they endanger the long-term stability of our legal system and the rights it protects.

As Justice Ginsburg once observed, “constitutional insulation” isn’t enough to protect the courts if we lose a culture that respects judicial independence. That culture must be actively maintained—and defended when under attack.

President Eisenhower intended Law Day to be more than a commemoration. It is a moment for national reflection. This Law Day, we must recommit to the principle that judges should decide cases based on law and facts—not fear of reprisal. We must insist that our leaders, including those in the executive branch, respect and follow the rulings of our courts, even when they disagree.

Madison, in introducing the Bill of Rights, said that “independent tribunals of justice” would be “the guardians of those rights.” That promise remains as vital today as ever. It’s up to all of us to keep it alive.

Muhammad U. Faridi is the President of the New York City Bar Association.