Also known as: government of laws not of men · a government of laws and not of men · rule of law
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A foundational constitutional principle requiring that governmental power be exercised only in accordance with established legal rules rather than personal discretion. The principle ensures that officials act within legal bounds and that remedies exist for violations of vested rights.
Gary Goldman operated a delivery truck that struck a pedestrian after a chain of events involving an unexpected detour. The court applied the rule that no manner of occurrence relieves the actor of liability once negligence is established as a substantial factor. Gary's conduct remained subject to legal standards rather than arbitrary exemption.
Gabriella Gomez owned land in one state while residing in another. The court classified the property as immovable under the law selected by choice-of-law principles. This classification followed established legal rules rather than personal preference of the forum.
George Garcia created a trust leaving property to his children for life then to his next of kin. The court treated the language as creating a valid remainder in the described class. This result followed the governing statute rather than any personal presumption favoring the transferor.
Guadalupe Gallegos published a statement causing pecuniary loss to a competitor. The court held the publisher subject to liability because the publication was a substantial factor. No special rule of law exempted the publisher based on the precise sequence of events.
Gloria Green and her partner sought recognition of their out-of-state marriage. The court applied constitutional principles to determine the validity of the union. The decision rested on legal standards rather than individual officials' preferences.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View caseGuillermo Guzman received a signed commission but was denied the office. The court held that the laws must provide a remedy for violation of a vested right. This outcome upheld the principle that government operates under law rather than personal will.
In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams. The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments. Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State. During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions. Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded. Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded. Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out. James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper. The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801. Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.
View caseOfficials must exercise power only according to established legal rules. The principle prevents actions based on personal discretion alone.
The principle holds that laws must furnish a remedy whenever a vested legal right is violated. Without such remedies the government would cease to merit the description of a government of laws.
Yes. When Congress directs disbursement of funds to all qualifying applicants by a fixed deadline, the executive must follow that command. Unilateral withholding based on political considerations violates the principle.
…that where there is a legal right there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law. The government of the United States is a government of laws and not of men; it will cease to deserve that appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of vested legal rights. The question is whether this case can be arranged with damnum absque…