Henry VIII, Sir Thomas More, And The Rule Of Law

Forbes

21 hours ago

The Rule Of Law Remains A Trending Topic In 2025 America. The flurry of executive orders issued by President Trump continues to impact many facets of American life, including the federal government, higher education, transportation, and the environment. Perhaps the most telling objectives of the Trump administration's sweeping directives have been orders issued to a number of major law firms in the United States.
Business people, paperwork and planning in office meeting, collaboration and teamwork for proposal. ... More Employees, talking and documents for finance review, support and briefing in boardroom for project
To date, the Trump administration has had notable tensions with such firms as Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, Jones Day, Sidley & Austin, and Kirkland & Ellis. While the details of the orders issued to these firms have nuanced variances, they share the generalized requirement that the firms refrain from certain litigation and provide pro bono services to the administration. Failure to observe these mandates would result in sanctions that would severely impact these firms' practice of law and business viability.
To avert sanctions, a number of firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and Cadwalader, have reached settlements with the administration. Other law firms, such as Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, have challenged the administration's orders and petitioned federal courts to bar enforcement of these orders that, in their view, are retaliatory in nature and abridge their right to free speech and engage freely in the practice of law.
Law firms that have challenged the Trump administration's orders have garnered a significant degree of success. Last month, a federal judge blocked the administration's order targeting WilmerHale, stating that the order's punitive measures such as revoking security clearances and building access, violated constitutional protections and undermined the independence of the judiciary and legal profession. Similar rulings issued earlier offered similar protections to other law firms such as Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie.
The Trump administration's exercise of executive power to limit powerful law firms from opposing certain governmental actions has far-reaching implications for a modern democracy. The legal profession has historically been tasked to check the government through a challenge of its exercise of power. Threats to the legal profession stymie this checking mechanism and commensurately, potentially erodes the salience of the rule of law, which has been a foundational staple of American democracy.
There has always been periodic tension between the legal profession and the government's agendas. The profession's pursuit of justice in the face of governmental opposition constitutes an age-old phenomenon of historic proportions.
Over 500 years ago, the dramatic confrontation between King Henry VIII England and his Lord Chancellor, Thomas More, has remained an iconic illustration of the tension between governmental authority and the legal profession. Henry VIII's clash with More also demonstrates the perennial dilemma lawyers face as they pursue justice under the law.
In summary, King Henry VIII, desperate to sire a son, sought to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry Anne Boleyn. To accomplish this objective, he issued two proclamations - one that declared him head of the Church of England and the other establishing that any issue from his union with Anne Boleyn would succeed him on the throne. Henry VIII sought his Lord Thomas More's endorsement of these proclamations.
More, who strongly believed in the rule of law and a lawyer's duty to strive for universal justice, would not endorse the King's proclamations. He found both to be violative of moral and positive law.
Despite pressure from Henry VIII, and pleas from his family to capitulate, More remained steadfast. While he never spoke against the King's proclamations, he adamantly refused endorsement. That refusal cost him dearly, resulting in his execution by decapitation.
The dramatic confrontation between Henry VIII and Thomas More, which illustrated the tension between a lawyer's duty to uphold the rule of law while satisfying the objectives of a client, has contemporary relevance. Today, law firms that have been subjected to the demands of the executive branch are now experiencing their dilemmas of conscience.
Achievement of the balance between adherence to legal rules and appeasement of authority can be precarious. Most lawyers attempt to maintain a lucrative practice while adhering to their duty to uphold the rule of law. Layered within this struggle lies society's need for judicial impartiality, justice, and sustenance of a democracy, which are all dependent upon adherence to the rule of law.
Also at stake in the balancing of rule adherence and professional appeasement is the public's perception of the judicial system and the legal profession in general. Lawyers have had a longstanding duty to uphold the rule of law and foster societal confidence in the profession. This ethical duty ensures public faith in the legal system and, in turn, sustains a functional democracy. Without public confidence in these fundamental principles, democracy will, at best, wither.
Fulfillment of a lawyer's ethical obligations requires firm commitment and, at times, bravery. As Sir Thomas More's narrative demonstrates, adherence to the principles of justice can be perilous. That said, abandonment of this important duty leads, at best, to cognitive dissonance for lawyers and, at worst, a crippled democracy.
Lessons from Henry VIII and Thomas More's narrative have instructive value for those on either side of the political divide. For those seeking greater support for the executive branch, the conflict between the King and More tacitly suggests the value of engagement and negotiation rather than governance by fiat. Consensus through negotiation constitutes a tactic that heightens governmental efficiency and minimizes costly litigation. It also optimizes the possibility of achieving mutually acceptable settlements that might garner more universal acceptance.
'A Man For All Seasons,' which is a famous play written by Robert Bolt, captures the essence of Thomas More's dilemma of conscience. One scene from the play focuses on a conversation between More and his daughter, Elizabeth Roper, who argued valiantly for More to save his life by capitulating to Henry VIII.
Emphasizing that moral integrity required steadfast adherence to the rule of law, More tells Elizabeth that, 'If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly … but since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity, commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice, and thought, … why then perhaps we must stand fast a little — even at the risk of being heroes.'
Legal practitioners today will hopefully be inspired by More's example. By holding fast, lawyers would not only preserve the rule of law, but also ensure democracy's survival.