This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower designated May 1, 1958, as Law Day, USA. On every May 1 since, our nation has recognized what has come to be known as the rule of law.

What a tidy, simple phrase, but what does it mean? Essentially, the rule of law means that no individual or entity, be it president or private citizen, stands above the law. Democratic governments govern by laws and are themselves subject to the law's constraints.

The rule of law is the foundation of our political, economic and social structure. Leases are entered into with knowledge that they will be enforced as written. Cars are purchased with the assurance that upon making final payment, the buyer will receive the certificate of title.

A person accused of a crime has the assurance that individual constitutional rights will be protected by a judge who will apply the rule of law.

The rule of law holds that if our relationships with each other, whether social, economic, or political, are governed by a set of rules, rather than by a group of individuals, we are less likely to fall prey to authoritarian rule.

In his proclamation establishing Law Day, President Eisenhower declared that the "principle of guaranteed fundamental rights of individuals under the law is the heart and sinew of our nation, and distinguishes our governmental system from the type of government that rules by might alone."

In the not-too-distant past, Soviet leaders often declared rulings by their country's highest court null and void because they did not like them. In South Africa, until its new constitution took effect in 1994, the all-white, undemocratic parliament, not the courts, had final say on the constitutionality of laws.

In Latin America, people regularly criticize their governments for having laws on their books that are not enforced by either the courts or the police, and in some countries the police may interfere with the judgments of courts.

An essential characteristic of the rule of law is an independent judiciary. There are two types of judicial independence: institutional independence and decisional independence. Institutional independence means the judicial branch is independent from the executive and legislative branches. Under the U.S. Constitution's system of checks and balances, the courts are to restrain the legislative and executive branches by ruling actions void when they violate the Constitution.

Decisional independence is the idea that judges must be able to act without concern for the day-to-day whims of politics, to protect every citizen's individual rights and to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

Decisional independence does not mean judges are free to make decisions based on personal preferences. Rather, they are free to make impartial decisions, based on the facts of a case, legal arguments and relevant laws, without restrictions or improper influence by interested parties.

But, judges must have job security, guaranteed by law, to make decisions without concerns for pressure or attack by those in authority.

Imagine if judges could be removed from the bench simply because a powerful politician or corporate leader disagreed with their decisions. Would the falsely accused have a fair opportunity to vindicate themselves in court? Would ordinary citizens have an impartial forum to seek redress against big business or big government?

The process of removing judges from office should be difficult, precisely to ensure fair and impartial courts that are free to make unpopular decisions. However, the ability to decide cases without inappropriate interference does not mean judges are not accountable for their demeanor or diligence. Sound mechanisms exist to address issues that arise.

Thanks to rights embedded in our Constitution, and enforced every day in our courts under the rule of law, all of us are protected as individuals. These due process rights set forth an ideal of fairness, between government and citizen, that is the envy of the world.

This Law Day 2008, let us reflect on the rule of law in protecting justice and fairness in society and on our duties to maintain and promote an independent judiciary.

---

* CHRISTINE M. DURHAM is the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court.