Click to sign on to this Rule of Law Statement.

Sign-On

This past week, 80 law school deans signed a statement condemning the Trump administration’s attacks on big law firms. Our dean, Interim Dean Todd Pettys, of the University of Iowa College of Law, did not sign on. When asked by student leaders about his inaction, he explained his silence, saying, “[D]eans and other administrators should avoid making public statements about public controversies (except under very narrowly defined circumstances) and should leave the stage clear for others—like each of you and like each of our faculty and staff—to express their own views.”[1] So, here we are. Students and other signees from Iowa Law speak with our collective voice about the danger of the current hostility to the rule of law and how the abdication of protecting the rule of law ultimately harms students and marginalized communities. Frustration, sadness, disappointment, and disbelief have led us to this decision. Conviction, bravery, truth, and commitment have too.

Lawyers are trained to evaluate risk: to estimate the pros and cons of certain decisions and their legal ramifications. Those 80 deans of various law schools, including Drake University, the University of Nebraska, Creighton University, and the University of Minnesota, have decided that defending the profession they are responsible for molding is worth whatever risk may come. They have made the assessment that the assault on the legal profession, the incursion into the rights and freedoms enjoyed by every person, and the defilement of our fundamental democratic principles is unacceptable. This assessment is simple and correct. And many other bar associations, including The Iowa State Bar Association, agree.[2] And we wish our leadership at Iowa Law had made the same decision. 

The attempts by the Trump Administration to cower the legal profession into submission are inexcusable. Those in the legal profession, particularly those who hold the keys to its entry of training to become a lawyer, have an obligation to ensure the legal profession is robust and strong. It can be neither of these things when its members refuse to advocate for the survival of their own profession. Silence in and of itself is a statement. Neutrality is the stance of willful compliance with an unconstitutional and dangerous tide to undermine our legal system. While President Donald J. Trump’s chilling message to the legal community is anti-democratic, the silence from some in the legal community is a tacit acceptance of terms.

The Trump Administration

The United States Courts define the rule of law as, “a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are: publicly promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated, and consistent with international human rights principles.”[3] President Trump’s recent actions directly undermine the rule of law and this principle of accountability. Trump has issued a string of executive orders targeting firms for their ties to Trump’s perceived enemies, such as representing his adversaries or championing causes he opposes. In response, big law firms are protecting themselves. Milbank committed at least $100 million in pro bono work to causes aligned to “conservative ideals.”[4] This makes it the fourth major law firm to make a deal to avoid the punitive executive order, along with similar pledges by Willkie Farr & Gallagher,[5] Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[6] These firms have promised $340 million total in pro bono work to support Trump goals in exchange for avoiding his threats.[7]Other firms have chosen to fight against Trump’s targeted orders, including Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,[8] Perkins Coie,[9] and Jenner & Block.[10]

Federal judges have also been targets of Trump’s ire. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social after receiving an adverse ruling on litigation regarding his administration’s deportation flights.[11] This follows the tune set by other members of the Trump Administration.[12] JD Vance, a Yale Law graduate, said, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” on X after a federal judge blocked the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury Department records.[13] Elon Musk, a “special government employee” and “senior adviser to the president,”[14] similarly said, “A corrupt judge protecting corruption. He needs to be impeached NOW!” again on X.[15] While the talk of impeachment of federal judges is largely performative, the legitimacy of judicial oversight is a fundamental pillar of American democracy based on the separation of powers. 

Responsibility of the legal profession

In response to these statements, Chief Justice Roberts made a rare public statement: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”[16] This follows the warnings Chief Justice Roberts issued in the 2024 Year End Report.[17] The Trump administration’s efforts undermine the rule of law. The historical and principal responsibility of the legal profession is to stand behind the power of the courts and defend the rule of law. “The courts play an integral role in maintaining the rule of law, particularly when they hear the grievances voiced by minority groups or by those who may hold minority opinions.”[18]

In Interim Dean Pettys’s email, he referenced, “[A] debate that dates back to the Vietnam War and continues up through the present day about when it is and is not wise and appropriate for university administrators to make or sign public statements about news-making events.”[19] Presumably, he is referring to the 1967 Kalven Committee Report from the University of Chicago.[20] This report declared that the university should almost always remain neutral on political and social issues. Neutrality “arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.” Is there a diversity of viewpoints on the President attacking law firms for who they represent? For the President calling to impeach a federal judge who doesn’t issue a favorable ruling? The future of democracy, dependent on the rule of law, is not an important matter up for debate. And “neutrality” in and of itself is a statement. “Choosing to remain neutral is no less a political decision than is choosing to affiliate with a particular political faction.”[21]

Zealous advocacy is the standard allegedly promoted by Iowa Law. “[A]dvocacy is only valuable when it serves the truth, so zealous advocacy is limited to conduct that promotes fact-finding. . . . [A]ct[ing] as a check against a ‘win at all costs’ mindset[, this standard emphasizes] . . . that advocacy should not compromise integrity.”[22] Zealous advocacy is about responsible and effective representation. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct state, “[A] lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.”[23]

For marginalized groups and those the most at risk, zealous advocacy for the rule of law is not a convenience that can be placated with “neutrality” in the face of government hostility. For the marginalized and vulnerable, the threats to the rule of law are not a legal hypothetical or an entertaining debate on the differing theories of how administrators should approach public statements. Their danger is a storied history of oppression. And for those without the social power and protection of those with a tenured faculty position, the risks are immense. The Trump administration’s efforts are intended to systematically intimidate lawyers who represent the administration’s legal and political opponents. The rule of law depends on the ability of legal professionals to represent clients and champion causes without retribution from the government. 

We must speak up

To endorse the principle adopted by the Trump Administration is to betray the allegiance all lawyers take to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. There is no other way to parse our reality: the rule of law is in jeopardy. Judicial rulings are being either ignored or willfully flouted by the President and his executive branch agencies (they admitted they had defied a court order to turn around two flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members for deportation). All these actions and others are part of a brazen attempt by the Trump administration to impose their will regardless of the Constitution, governing law, and court decisions. 

There is a fundamental difference between asking university leadership to comment on current events, like the Vietnam War as Interim Dean Pettys cited, and the current state of our profession. Our ability to safely advocate within the legal system, and particularly against the government when needed, cannot be equated. We believe speaking up on the attacks on the legal profession is within the narrow scope that a dean should be expected to speak on, even if his most important goal is to be perceived as neutral during his tenure as the interim dean.[24]

Regardless of what institution leadership actually believes, their refusal to speak truth to power is telling. University of Iowa College of Law administration has let the community know that when their integrity, professionalism, and ethics as lawyers are challenged by the politically powerful, it is better not to take a risk. The fact that other deans and colleagues have made the same dangerous decision does not negate the responsibility of advocating for the student body they lead and represent here at Iowa. But it is true that this responsibility extends also to us, students at the University of Iowa College of Law, to take the necessary risks to protect our profession and the rule of law. 

Abdication of protecting the rule of law ultimately harms students and marginalized communities. Because of their example, students will become less inclined to believe that their school will protect their rights when their school will not speak out against attacks on the most fundamental aspect of their profession and livelihood. Law firms and law schools, like Iowa, that preach the concept of zealous advocacy are no longer leading by example. Student organizations have been tasked with protecting the student body as administrators silently look on. The onus has truly been put on students to protect one another. So, we must stand up for ourselves. 

Moving Forward

We, the undersigned, endorse the statement made by 80 other deans across the country. Further, we emphatically condemn the Trump administration’s use of executive orders, pressure tactics, and other questionable forms of Presidential power to institute an ecosystem of fear, repression, and lawlessness. We ask the University of Iowa College of Law to do more. We ask Interim Dean Pettys to join us: sign on to the deans’ statement or write a public letter condemning the actions of the administration. We ask the Iowa Student Bar Association to join us: sign on to this statement or write a public letter condemning the actions of the administration.[25]

We support efforts at the University of Iowa like those of the Counselors for Social Justice, who will be hosting a Sit-In at the Old Capitol on Tuesday, April 29.[26] Additionally, we will be partaking in a coalition-building forum at the University of Iowa College of Law to build bridges for action, resistance, and justice amongst our community and collaborate on ways we can uplift each other and support our marginalized communities. It is a privilege to use our voices to speak on behalf of those who have been silenced by the Trump administration. 

Interim Dean Pettys made clear to us that if we want to speak out, we should. So, because the University of Iowa College of Law will not speak truth to power, we, as the undersigned students, will. While it is incredibly disappointing to find that our university leadership is not willing to protect us as law students in the advocacy we already do as clinicians, summer interns, and volunteers, the growing hostility in the current political climate worries us even more for the future work we will continue to do as lawyers with clients and causes the current administration opposes. The student organizations that this responsibility has fallen to at the University of Iowa College of Law will take up Interim Dean Pettys's call to action. If it is to be, it is up to us.

Click to sign on to this Rule of Law Statement.

Sign-On
 

Signed By: 

Student Organizations-

American Constitution Society | University of Iowa College of Law Chapter
Asian Pacific American Law Student Association (APALSA)
Counselor's for Social Justice
Disability Law Students Association (DLSA)
If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice at Iowa Law
National Lawyers Guild at Iowa Law
Native American Law Students Association (NALSA)
OutLaws
OWLSS Executive Board
Women of Color Coalition (WOCC)

Students-

A.
Adarsh Sukumar
Alethea Gauthier 
Andrea Baumgartel
Andrew Wendel - JGRJ Vol. 27 Editor-in-Chief
Angela Pruitt - JGRJ Vol. 26 Editor-in-Chief
Annie Colwell
Anonymous Staff Member
Anthony Mundt
A.R.
Ashley Chipokas
Austin Synoground
Ben Reimler 
Bree Rubel
Brennden Prohaska
Caleb Slater - Administrative Editor, Iowa Law Review
Cara Meyer
Cassidy Rea
Cathleen Manivong
Claire Benson
Courtney Camenzind
Dave Bright - University of Iowa Faculty
Emma Diers
Emmy Frigo - 2L ISBA Representative
Erin Frith
Fotini Marut
Gabriela Martin
Geoffroi G. Castro 
Hannah Wenger
Iliana Williams
Isaac Stuart
Jake Dahm
Jay Moran
Jay Zaksek
Jessica Patel
Joann Mulholland
Jonah O’Bert
Jude Hagerman
Justina Lee
K.H.
Karlyn Simcox
Kate Robinson
Kaylee Bishop
Kyle Kopf
Laura Ownby
Lilliana Sánchez Aguilar
Lyka May Canto 
Madelyn Steen
Maeve Dunne
Makayla Bruno-Smith
Matthew Klaes
Maura Rost - University of Iowa Graduate Student
Maureen Wainwright
Max Cheng
Maya Jalukar
Megan LeBlanc 
Nathan Vanderheyden
Nicholas Musich
Parker McMillan
Quinn Kennedy
Robinson Rodriguez
Sarah Schroeder
Sean Hilzendeger
Shahab Khan 
Shannon Walsh
Sophia Gilligan Shubatt
Tiffany Brinkman
Iowa Law Alum, Class of 2024
Iowa Law Alum, Class of 2024
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2025
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2025
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2025
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2025
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2025
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2025
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2026
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2026
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2026
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2027
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2027
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2027
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2027
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2027
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2027
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2027
Iowa Law Student, Class of 2027