Leading Democracy Scholars and Experts Warn Politicized Firings of FBI Officials Threaten Rule of Law

WASHINGTON — More than a dozen leading democracy scholars and experts, represented by the States United Democracy Center, filed an amicus brief in Driscoll v. Patel, a case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The group urges the court to deny the government’s motion to dismiss and allow the case to proceed, warning that the termination of three senior FBI officials as part of a campaign of retribution by President Trump is a symptom of a weakening democracy and threat to the rule of law.

“The independence of federal law enforcement is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,” said Mai Ratakonda, Senior Counsel & Program Director at the States United Democracy Center. “When career officials are removed because they are seen as insufficiently loyal to a president’s personal interests, that’s not normal. These firings raise serious concerns about whether the justice system is being bent to serve political power rather than the rule of law.”

The case challenges the firing of Brian Driscoll, Jr., Steve Jensen, and Spencer Evans— longtime, nonpartisan FBI leaders who allege they were removed from their positions because they weren’t seen as sufficiently loyal to the president.

The brief is supported by an ideologically diverse group of experts who study countries’ shifts from democracy to autocracy. It explains that there is a consistent pattern in countries experiencing democratic backsliding: Leaders with autocratic tendencies often seek to consolidate power by interfering with the independence of law enforcement. This typically begins with the removal of career professionals perceived as insufficiently loyal, followed by the installation of political yes-men and the expansion of executive control under broad and questionable claims of legal authority. Once dissent has been quelled and law enforcement institutions have been captured, they can be used to shield those in power from accountability, weaken political opposition, and intimidate or investigate perceived adversaries. These actions are frequently justified through formal legal mechanisms, making them appear lawful even as they undermine the rule of law.

The amici emphasize that while the executive branch has some authority over personnel decisions within law enforcement agencies, courts play a critical role in ensuring that constitutional protections and long-standing guardrails are not eroded in the process. They note that additional improper firings and prosecutions of perceived opponents have been initiated or threatened, as seen in United States v. James and United States v. Comey, underscoring the broader context in which these firings occurred.

Signatories on the brief include: Michael Albertus, Javier Corrales, Larry Diamond, David M. Driesen, Francis Fukuyama, Tom Ginsburg, Gábor Halmai, Gretchen Helmke, Aziz Z. Huq, Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, Sonia Mittal, Maria Popova, Stephen Richer, Dalibor Rohac, Susan Stokes, and Lucan Way.

Key excerpts from the brief include:

While we recognize that the executive branch has some latitude to fire law enforcement officers such as Plaintiffs, it is vital to recognize the dangers politicized firings of law enforcement pose to the fabric of democracy. Judicial review of these claims is key to maintaining the rule of law and democratic norms. Here, the allegations in the Complaint indicate that Plaintiffs were targeted for removal based on the perception that they were disloyal to the personal interests of President Trump. Other such firings have already occurred and more are likely.

In this way, by controlling law enforcement agencies, the leader can weaken opposition parties, thereby facilitating his and his successors’ entrenchment in office. The way in which a government seizes control over law enforcement varies based on the structure and traditions of a country’s justice system, but the loss of these agencies’ independence and the leader’s ensuing abuse of them invariably damages the rule of law.

Modern autocracies look different from their predecessors. Today’s autocrats can “come to power not with bullets but with laws,” and they tend to function—at least to some extent—within the legal system, in an attempt to legitimize their actions. The “ultimate goal” of these regimes, however, is “to use the legal system to crush resistance and concentrate power.” The result is that everyday citizens may be unable to recognize the effects on the rule of law and the damage to democratic principles. That democratic backsliding is often a nonlinear and gradual process only compounds the difficulty of recognizing it.

Read a summary of the amicus brief here.

###

About the States United Democracy Center

States United is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the rule of law and free, fair, secure elections. We provide direct support to state officials and law enforcement leaders as they uphold the law and our system of checks and balances, protect public safety, defend elections, and preserve our democracy. For more information, visit statesunited.org.