It is rare, in the work of a federal district judge, that we have an opportunity to call on the authority of the Declaration of Independence. Its words are unlikely to appear in our written opinions. Its historical context is unlikely to be cited in any court proceeding. Nevertheless, the document and its historical underpinnings are never very far from the work we do as trial judges. It stands in the background when we administer oaths of office. It is present when we explain to a disappointed litigant why the law requires a result other than what they sought. It is revealed when we explain to jurors that everyone, regardless of status or station, must be treated equally in their deliberations. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the document that is at once both omnipresent and obscure, it is important to reflect on what that document still demands of judges, and how it should inform our professional responsibilities.
Judges dwell in the world of positive law: constitutions, statutes, rules, regulations, and judicial precedent. We decide concrete cases and controversies in accordance with those sources that bind us in ways the Declaration of Independence does not. Yet the Declaration of Independence provides the “why” beneath the “what” of our work. Its grievances against the Crown—obstructing the administration of justice, manipulating the tenure and compensation of judges, subordinating law to will, whimsy or personality—describe conditions that the federal judiciary exists, in part, to prevent. Our judicial structure of protecting against special interest through life tenure, salary protections and separation of power are institutional responses to the grievances outlined in 1776.
Alongside those protections lives another more fundamental premise in that founding document—the then-radical idea that all persons are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. While the goal of equality would not be realized for quite some time—and some may debate whether it was ever—the document’s insistence on equality influences how judges approach litigants every day. It instructs that every person who appears in court—no matter their background, the allegations against them, their fame or their position—stands before the law as an equal. All are entitled to due process, to counsel, to the right to be heard and the right to access justice. Procedural fairness is a nonnegotiable tenet of our system.
Principles of fairness, judicial independence, and separation of powers go to the very core of the Declaration of Independence’s continued relevance. They remind us that the law’s authority ultimately rests on legitimacy, not force. Judicial orders continue to be obeyed because the public believes that courts are acting within a system that promotes fairness. The public trusts that federal courts, unburdened of special interests or elections, base decisions on the rule of law. These are the conditions that must exist in exchange for the public’s “consent to be governed.” Indeed, when the independence of the judiciary is threatened—when judges are criticized or threatened for doing their job—we must return again to that 1776 document and recall that interference with courts was among the “causes which impel[led]” a people to challenge their form of government.
The anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is not merely a commemorative moment. Rather, this semiquincentennial document continues to serve as a guidepost for the future of the rule of law, but only if we learn from its teachings. At its heart, the Declaration of Independence invites us to offer fidelity to justice and consider that the legitimacy of government depends upon what we do with the authority we have been given.
Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. She is a member of the Q. Todd Dickinson Intellectual Property American Inn of Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.