We chose "The Rule of Law" as our theme for this issue because it feels urgent and personal right now. The pieces in this issue reflect a legal profession grappling with challenges that feel different from anything we've faced before. Our contributors aren't just writing about abstract constitutional principles—they're wrestling with whether those principles will survive intact.

Judge James Schurz opens with a thoughtful piece on judicial conduct that draws from California's leading judicial ethics authority. His analysis of what Supreme Court justices have been saying about judicial independence lately is both scholarly and sobering. When sitting justices feel compelled to defend the legitimacy of their own branch of government, we're clearly in uncharted territory.

Elizabeth Bohannon's piece about her grandparents' escape from Soviet-occupied Hungary hits differently when you consider what's happening today. Her family's story—choosing to flee authoritarianism even when it meant leaving everything behind—serves as both historical context and contemporary warning. Sometimes the most powerful legal arguments come from lived experience.

David Feingold's call for lawyers to think of themselves as revolutionaries might sound dramatic, but his comparison to Pakistani lawyers literally fighting in the streets to defend judicial independence makes his point. His question is uncomfortable but necessary: What are we willing to do to protect what we say we value?

Len Rifkind takes a more systematic approach, cataloging recent executive actions and their constitutional implications. His piece reads like a legal brief prepared for the historical record—meticulous, comprehensive, and deeply concerning. The action steps he outlines aren't theoretical; they're practical suggestions for lawyers who want to do something beyond just talking about these issues.

And then there's Molly Cohen Phipps, the law student who cuts through all our learned discourse with a simple question: "Is this normal?" Her perspective is valuable because she sees clearly what those of us deeper in practice might overlook or dismiss as "just politics."

This issue also includes Marc Hoag's detailed analysis of AI copyright law—a reminder that the rule of law must evolve to handle new technological challenges without losing its core principles. His argument that AI training should fall entirely outside copyright's domain shows how legal thinking needs to adapt while staying grounded in established doctrine.

Nestor Schnasse's profile of Canal Alliance shows how these constitutional concerns affect our local community. His documentation of how current immigration enforcement has created a climate of fear in Marin's Latino community reminds us that constitutional principles only matter if they actually protect real people facing real problems.

Even Karen Poppy's poetry speaks to our theme. Her poem "El Salvador-CECOT" uses the metaphor of safety coffins to suggest we need to "pull the cord" and "ring the bell" when we see injustice. As we head into Pride Month and approach Juneteenth, her words about survival and belonging under the law feel especially relevant.

The legislative threat that prompted several of these pieces—Section 70302 of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—would prohibit federal courts from enforcing contempt citations without posted security. It sounds technical, but it's designed to gut judicial authority in civil rights cases in which judges typically waive the bond requirement. The practical effect would be to render court orders meaningless—government officials could simply ignore injunctions knowing they face no real enforcement mechanism. That's not reform; that's dismantling.

What strikes me about all these contributions is that none of our writers have given up. They're not just documenting problems—they're fighting for solutions. They understand that the rule of law isn't self-executing. It requires constant maintenance by people who care enough to do the work.

President Kristine Fowler Cirby puts it well in her message: "Now is the time to speak up and step up. The Rule of Law depends on us." These pieces suggest she's right. The question is whether we're listening.
—The Editor