Ohioans for
the Rule of Law

Recent events across the country have caused many of us to reflect, soberly and seriously, on whether those commitments are being tested in ways we have not seen in modern times. The use of armed government agents without clear identification, the deployment of military or quasi-military forces in civilian settings, the targeting of institutions perceived as dissenting, and the blurring of lines between law enforcement and political objectives should concern Americans of every political persuasion. These are not abstract debates. They go to the core question of whether power remains constrained by law.

As lawyers, we are trained to resist hysteria and demand evidence, authority, and legal justification. But we are also trained to recognize warning signs. History—both here and abroad—teaches that democratic erosion rarely arrives at once. It advances incrementally, often justified as necessary, temporary, or aimed at some perceived emergency. The danger lies not only in unlawful acts themselves, but in their normalization.

The Rule of Law does not fail only when courts close or elections cease. It fails when institutions hesitate to insist on legal limits; when citizens become accustomed to actions that would once have been unthinkable; and when those with professional and civic responsibility choose silence because speaking feels uncomfortable or risky.

Ohio is not immune from these pressures. 

The question before us is therefore not partisan and not speculative. It is civic and constitutional: What obligations do we owe to one another before red lines are crossed—rather than after?

Of course, courts play a critical role in checking unlawful government action. But the Rule of Law has never been sustained by courts alone. It depends on a culture of legality—on lawyers, educators, faith leaders, veterans, business owners, labor leaders, and ordinary citizens who understand that law is a discipline that restrains power, not a tool that serves it.

Waiting until constitutional violations are undeniable and irreversible is not prudence; it is abdication. Preparedness in defense of lawful governance is not radical. It is responsible citizenship.

We therefore call on Ohio’s institutions and civic leaders to reflect now—calmly, deliberately, and in good faith—on what adherence to the Rule of Law requires if governmental power is exercised without lawful justification. We urge conversations within professional associations, houses of worship, workplaces, and neighborhoods about how lawful, peaceful, and principled responses should occur if democratic norms are threatened.

This is not a call for disorder. It is a call for order grounded in law.

Some will inevitably claim that raising these concerns is political. It is not. The Rule of Law is not a partisan possession. It is the common inheritance of free people. Defending it does not require agreement on policy or ideology—only a shared insistence that power must always answer to the law.

Our state has met difficult moments before with seriousness, restraint, and courage. We are confident it can do so again—not through fear or force, but through fidelity to constitutional principles that endure precisely because they restrain us all.

The question is not whether challenges will arise. It is whether we will be prepared to meet them lawfully, collectively, and without hesitation.