What Is the Rule of Law
The rule of law is the idea that everyone, including the people who run the government, has to follow the same publicly known laws, and that independent courts decide what those laws mean. It protects you from officials who act on whim, and it means a president, a police officer and a neighbor answer to the same rules you do.
Key facts
- It is question 13 on the 2025 U.S. citizenship test. One accepted answer: “No one is above the law” (USCIS).
- The U.S. ranked 27th of 143 countries in the 2025 World Justice Project index, its lowest score since 2015.
- “Limits on government power” fell more than any other U.S. score from 2015 to 2025, from 0.76 to 0.63.
- 68% of countries scored lower in 2025 than in 2024, the United States among them (WJP).
The rule of law is measured, not just argued about. The World Justice Project surveys households and legal experts in every country it ranks, and the sections below show what those surveys found for the United States over ten editions. First, what the term means to the groups that define it.
Four Principles Behind the Rule of Law
Most definitions share one core: the law binds the government, not just the governed. They differ on how much more they include. The table sets four widely cited versions side by side, each in its own words.
How four institutions define the rule of law
Source: USCIS civics test M-1778 (09/25); World Justice Project; UN Secretary-General, S/2004/616, paragraph 6 (August 23, 2004); American Bar Association Division for Public Education
The U.S. citizenship answer is the plainest, and the UN’s is the fullest. The UN version names two things the citizenship answer leaves out: laws that are “independently adjudicated” and laws “consistent with international human rights norms and standards.” Legal philosophers call the short version a “thin” rule of law and the longer one “thick,” a disagreement covered further down.
Where the Rule of Law Idea Came From
The idea is old, and Americans wrote it into their founding documents. Magna Carta limited an English king in 1215. John Locke wrote in 1690 that “where-ever law ends, tyranny begins.” John Adams put “a government of laws and not of men” into the Massachusetts constitution in 1780. The U.S. Constitution made itself the supreme law in 1787, and Chief Justice John Marshall quoted Adams’s phrase in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The Supreme Court held states to it in Cooper v. Aaron in 1958 and a sitting president to it in United States v. Nixon in 1974.
- Magna Carta limits the English king No free man may be imprisoned or stripped of his property except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.
- Locke: where law ends, tyranny begins John Locke's Second Treatise of Government says an official who uses force the law does not allow stops being a lawful magistrate.
- A government of laws, not of men John Adams's phrase closes the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article XXX.
- The Constitution names itself supreme law Article VI makes the Constitution "the supreme Law of the Land" and binds every judge to it.
- Marbury: courts say what the law is Chief Justice Marshall quoted the "government of laws, and not of men" and claimed the power of judicial review.
- Cooper v. Aaron: states must obey All nine justices signed the opinion holding Arkansas officials to the Court's school desegregation rulings.
- United States v. Nixon: no absolute privilege A unanimous Court ordered President Nixon to turn over the White House tapes.
Sources: National Archives, Magna Carta exhibit and translation of the 1297 version; Locke, Second Treatise, section 202 (Project Gutenberg); Massachusetts Constitution, Article XXX (Massachusetts Legislature); the Supreme Court opinions, via Cornell Legal Information Institute.
How the rule of law became an American principle: 1215: Magna Carta limits the English king (No free man may be imprisoned or stripped of his property except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.). 1690: Locke: where law ends, tyranny begins (John Locke's Second Treatise of Government says an official who uses force the law does not allow stops being a lawful magistrate.). 1780: A government of laws, not of men (John Adams's phrase closes the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article XXX.). 1787: The Constitution names itself supreme law (Article VI makes the Constitution "the supreme Law of the Land" and binds every judge to it.). 1803: Marbury: courts say what the law is (Chief Justice Marshall quoted the "government of laws, and not of men" and claimed the power of judicial review.). 1958: Cooper v. Aaron: states must obey (All nine justices signed the opinion holding Arkansas officials to the Court's school desegregation rulings.). 1974: United States v. Nixon: no absolute privilege (A unanimous Court ordered President Nixon to turn over the White House tapes.).
1215: On June 15, 1215, facing 40 rebellious barons, King John sealed Magna Carta, the National Archives explains. It promised that no free man would be punished except “by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land,” words kept in the 1297 version the Archives translates. The same idea became the Due Process Clause, which our due process explainer traces.
1690: John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, section 202, argued that “where-ever law ends, tyranny begins.” An official who uses force “which the law allows not,” he wrote, “ceases in that to be a magistrate.”
1780: The Massachusetts constitution, drafted by John Adams according to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, ended its declaration of rights with a separation of powers clause meant to ensure “a government of laws and not of men.”
1787: Article VI of the Constitution made it “the supreme Law of the Land” and bound “the Judges in every State” to it, which our Supremacy Clause explainer covers.
1803: In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall wrote that “the government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men,” and held that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Our judicial review explainer covers that power.
1958: When Arkansas officials tried to delay integrating Little Rock Central High, all nine justices signed Cooper v. Aaron on September 29, 1958: “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
1974: In United States v. Nixon, decided July 24, 1974, an 8-0 Court rejected “an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process” and ordered the White House tapes turned over. Nixon complied and resigned on August 9, 16 days later (U.S. Senate). Our executive privilege explainer covers what is left of that privilege.
How the United States Scores on the Rule of Law
The United States ranked 27th of 143 countries in the World Justice Project’s 2025 index, released October 28, 2025. Its overall score fell 2.8% in one year, to 0.68 on a scale of 0 to 1, and the lowest U.S. score in any edition since 2015. In 2024 it ranked 26th of 142.
- 27 of 143
- U.S. global rank in the 2025 index
- 20 of 31
- U.S. rank among the EU, EFTA and North America
- 27 of 51
- U.S. rank among high-income countries
- 68%
- of countries declined in 2025, up from 57% the year before
7 of the 8 things the index measures got worse in the United States between 2015 and 2025, and 1 got better. The one that rose is order and security, which measures crime and violence. The largest fall was in limits on government power.
| Group | 2015 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limits on government power | 0.76 | 0.63 | −0.13 |
| Absence of corruption | 0.76 | 0.72 | −0.04 |
| Open government | 0.78 | 0.72 | −0.06 |
| Fundamental rights | 0.73 | 0.65 | −0.08 |
| Order and security | 0.82 | 0.83 | +0.01 |
| Regulatory enforcement | 0.74 | 0.70 | −0.04 |
| Civil justice | 0.67 | 0.62 | −0.05 |
| Criminal justice | 0.64 | 0.57 | −0.07 |
Source: World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, 2015 and 2025 editions, U.S. factor scores on a 0 to 1 scale (1 is strongest).
The one gain matters for how to read the rest. The index is not measuring whether Americans are safe from crime, which improved. It is measuring whether the government itself is bound by law, and those scores moved the other way. By 2025 the United States ranked 42nd in the world on fundamental rights, its weakest factor.
Peer democracies score higher. Among large wealthy democracies, the United States now trails every one in the chart below.
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Denmark, ranked 1st | 0.9 |
| Germany | 0.83 |
| Canada | 0.79 |
| United Kingdom | 0.78 |
| Japan | 0.78 |
| France | 0.72 |
| United States | 0.68 |
Source: World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025, overall scores on a 0 to 1 scale.
Limits on Government Power Fell the Most
The sharpest U.S. drop since 2015 is in whether Congress limits the president. The index breaks “constraints on government powers” into six parts. Five of them are charted here, and the legislative check fell from 0.87 to 0.61.
| Group | 2015 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limited by the legislature | 0.87 | 0.61 | −0.26 |
| Limited by the courts | 0.80 | 0.65 | −0.15 |
| Officials punished for misconduct | 0.68 | 0.52 | −0.16 |
| Checked by the press and civil society | 0.82 | 0.67 | −0.15 |
| Power changes hands under the law | 0.84 | 0.70 | −0.14 |
Source: World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, sub-factors 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, U.S. scores on a 0 to 1 scale. Sub-factor 1.3, independent auditing, is left out because that score rose, from 0.57 to 0.63.
These scores come from surveys, so they measure how lawyers, scholars and the public judge the system, not a count of court cases. WJP’s own U.S. release put it this way: "The integrity of checks and balances has also been seriously weakened, including in the United States." The record behind that judgment includes 17 inspectors general fired without the notice the law requires and a criminal contempt inquiry into whether officials defied a court order, which our judicial review explainer tracks.
Rule of Law Tests in 2025 and 2026
The current fights turn on one question: will officials follow a court’s order or a statute they dislike? Each row below links to the explainer that tracks it in detail.
Where the main rule of law tests stand
As of October 14, 2026
- Defiance of the March 2025 deportation flight order In litigation, criminal contempt
The full D.C. Circuit heard argument on September 29, 2026 on whether officials should face criminal contempt for flying the men to El Salvador. It has not ruled. (source)
- Returning a man deported by error (Abrego Garcia) Ended, returned June 2025
The Supreme Court told the government on April 10, 2025 to "facilitate" his return. He was brought back in June 2025, PBS NewsHour reported. (source)
- Firing of 17 inspectors general In litigation, not reinstated
A judge ruled on September 24, 2025 that the firings broke the notice law but refused to reinstate the IGs. In July 2026 she set a pre-motion process for summary judgment on the remaining claims, including back pay. On October 14, 2026, the day set for the pre-motion conference, the court set deadlines for government status reports on October 16 and 23 and a joint status report on November 9. (source)
- Executive orders against four law firms In litigation
Four district judges held them unconstitutional in 2025. The D.C. Circuit heard the appeal on May 14, 2026, and had not ruled by September 24. (source)
- Firing independent-agency heads Final ruling, allowed
Trump v. Slaughter, June 29, 2026, 6-3: the FTC's protection of commissioners from removal except for cause "is contrary to the separation of powers." (source)
Source: D.C. Circuit docket and argument recordings; Supreme Court order in Noem v. Abrego Garcia; PBS NewsHour; ACLU of D.C.; Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse; Supreme Court opinions
Not every row is a loss for the rule of law. Slaughter is a ruling, and following it is the rule of law working as designed, whatever one thinks of the result. The rows that test the principle are the ones where officials delayed or resisted an order already issued. The rule of law issue hub collects every explainer and letter on these fights.
The Honest Disagreement Over the Rule of Law
People who agree the rule of law matters still disagree about what it requires. Philosopher Joseph Raz argued in 1977 that the rule of law “is just one of the virtues which a legal system may possess,” separate from democracy and human rights. Tom Bingham argued in his 2010 book The Rule of Law for a “thick” version: a state “which savagely represses or persecutes sections of its people” does not observe the rule of law, he wrote, even when detailed laws authorize the persecution. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy quotes both.
A few distinctions keep the argument honest:
- Rule of law is not the same as “law and order.” Order and security was the one U.S. score that rose. The rule of law asks whether the government follows the law, which is a different question from how much crime there is.
- An index is a measurement with limits. The World Justice Project’s 2025 scores rest on more than 215,000 household surveys and 4,100 expert surveys, which WJP says measure how the rule of law “is experienced and perceived.” They are not a count of broken laws.
- Losing in court is not a rule of law failure. A court ruling you disagree with, like Slaughter, is the system working. The test is whether the losing side complies.
Which is an example of the rule of law?
A president complying with a court order he opposes. In 1974 President Nixon turned over the White House tapes after an 8-0 Supreme Court ordered him to, and resigned 16 days later.
What does the U.S. Constitution say about the rule of law?
The phrase is not in the Constitution. The idea runs through it: Article VI makes the Constitution supreme and binds every judge and official by oath to support it, the president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and the 5th and 14th Amendments forbid taking anyone’s life, liberty or property without due process of law.
What is the most famous quote about the rule of law?
Chief Justice Marshall quoted one in Marbury v. Madison in 1803: the United States had been called “a government of laws, and not of men,” the idea John Adams wrote into the 1780 Massachusetts constitution. Another is John Locke’s 1690 line, “where-ever law ends, tyranny begins.”
How is the rule of law measured?
The World Justice Project scores 143 countries on 8 factors, using surveys of households and of legal experts in each country, and publishes the results each year. The U.S. scores, like every country’s, come from the World Justice Project’s published data files.
What You Can Do
- Learn the answer the way new citizens do. The USCIS civics test is a free, plain summary of how American government is supposed to work. Question 13 is this page in four lines.
- Watch compliance, not just rulings. When a court rules against the government, follow whether the order is carried out. Our judicial review tracker lists the cases where compliance is in question.
- Ask your members of Congress to use their checks. The largest U.S. decline is in the legislative check on the executive. Oversight hearings, subpoenas and appropriations are Congress’s tools. Use our guide to writing your representative to ask yours to use them.
- Support the watchdogs. Inspectors general and the courts depend on public attention. Our inspector general explainer shows how to report waste or misconduct, and our impeachment explainer covers Congress’s last-resort check.