Dear Colleagues,
In my previous message, I wrote about the erosion of civility in our courtrooms and the need to restore professional standards that honor our federal practice traditions. Today, I address a related but more urgent concern: the transformation of our national discourse into something our founders would scarcely recognize, and our obligation as federal practitioners to defend the democratic principles that make our work both possible and meaningful.
The past two years have witnessed an alarming escalation of political violence across the ideological spectrum. Public servants—from local officials to state legislators, from governors to presidential candidates—have faced threats, attacks, and in some tragic cases, assassinations. These incidents represent more than isolated acts of extremism; they signal a dangerous departure from the foundational American principle that we resolve our differences through words, not weapons.
James Madison, writing in Federalist 10, observed that “[t]here are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Today, we face a different but equally insidious threat: the gradual erosion of democratic norms not only by government overreach, but by citizens themselves who have lost faith in the power of peaceful discourse to resolve our most pressing challenges.
Thomas Jefferson understood that our experiment in self-governance depended entirely on the free exchange of ideas. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost,” he wrote, recognizing that democracy dies when we stop talking to each other and start silencing each other. He further observed that “differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, & the imperfection of reason. but these differences, when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overshadowing our land transiently, & leaving our horizon more bright & serene.”
The violence we’ve witnessed—whether targeting conservatives or progressives, Democrats or Republicans—represents the antithesis of this vision. When we respond to disagreement with threats, when we meet opposing viewpoints with violence, when we attempt to silence rather than persuade, we abandon the very principles that make democratic self-governance possible.
As federal practitioners, we occupy a unique position in this crisis. We are officers of courts established by Article III of the Constitution, institutions designed to resolve disputes through reasoned argument rather than force. Every day, we demonstrate that even the most contentious disagreements can be addressed through structured debate, evidence presentation, and impartial adjudication. Our courtrooms are laboratories of democratic discourse, where ideas clash but violence has no place.
This experience gives us both insight and responsibility. We understand viscerally what many Americans seem to have forgotten: that the strength of an argument lies in its logic and evidence, not in the volume with which it’s delivered or the threats that accompany it. We know that zealous advocacy and mutual respect are not contradictory but complementary. Most importantly, we’ve seen firsthand that the rule of law provides a framework within which even bitter adversaries can find resolution.
So what can we do to help heal our fractured national discourse? First, we can model the behavior we seek in the broader society. In our written advocacy, we can choose precision over hyperbole, substance over invective. In our oral arguments, we can demonstrate that passionate advocacy need not descend into personal attack. In our professional interactions, we can show that treating opponents with dignity actually strengthens rather than weakens our position.
Second, we can serve as translators between the legal system and the broader public. Too many Americans have lost faith in institutions because they don’t understand how those institutions work. We can help by explaining—in bar publications, community presentations, and civic organizations—how legal processes actually function, why deliberation takes time, and how the seemingly arcane rules of evidence and procedure serve to protect fundamental rights.
Third, we can mentor the next generation of legal professionals with explicit attention to their role as guardians of democratic discourse. Law schools teach legal doctrine and practice skills, but they often assume that students will absorb professional values through osmosis. We cannot make that assumption. We must explicitly teach that zealous advocacy includes the obligation to preserve the institutions that make such advocacy possible.
Fourth, we can support and participate in efforts to restore civics education. A citizenry that understands how democratic institutions work, why free speech matters, and how peaceful dispute resolution serves everyone’s interests is less likely to embrace extremist solutions to complex problems.
Finally, we can remember that our professional identity is inseparably connected to our civic identity. We are not just lawyers who happen to practice in federal court; we are citizens who have chosen a profession that serves democratic values. When those values come under attack—whether by political violence, authoritarian rhetoric, or the gradual erosion of institutional norms—we have not just the opportunity but the obligation to defend them.
Ronald Reagan, speaking about the essential role of a free press in democratic society, observed that “[t]here is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong, and independent press to our continued success in what the Founding Fathers called our ‘noble experiment’ in self-government.” I would suggest that equally essential is a legal profession committed to demonstrating, day after day, that reasoned discourse can resolve even our most difficult disputes.
The challenges facing our democracy are real, but they are not insurmountable. Throughout our history, Americans have faced similar moments when the very foundations of our system seemed under threat. Each time, we have been saved not by heroes or great leaders, but by ordinary citizens who refused to abandon the principles that make democratic self-governance possible.
As federal practitioners, we have the knowledge, the skills, and the institutional position to play a meaningful role in preserving those principles for future generations. The question is whether we will rise to meet this moment, or whether we will stand by while the noble experiment our founders began slowly dissolves into something they would no longer recognize.
I believe we will choose to act. I believe we will remember that our professional oath commits us not just to zealous advocacy for our clients, but to preservation of the system that makes such advocacy both possible and meaningful. And I believe that in doing so, we can help ensure that future generations inherit a democracy worthy of the sacrifices made to create and preserve it.
The choice before us is not between Republican and Democrat, conservative and progressive, or any other political division. It is between a society that resolves its differences through democratic discourse and one that abandons that discourse for the false promise of force. As federal practitioners, we know which path serves justice. Let us commit ourselves to walking it, and to helping our fellow citizens find their way back to it as well.
Respectfully yours,
Eric C. Nordby
President