The Luttig Rule
Even Presidents must, in good faith, follow the rules of their government
The Luttig Rule, named for Judge J. Michael Luttig, asserts that the Executive branch should not overstep its boundaries by excessively prosecuting individuals or causes. The primary role of the Executive is to protect the community, and it should therefore exercise “Excessive Caution,” particularly during election seasons. This means that the Executive should bear the costs of community protection, while strictly adhering to the rule of law, especially 90 days before and after an election.
The Luttig Rule also implies that any attempt at a revolution or coup, if proven to be orchestrated by a corrupt organization seeking undue Executive power, can be and should be classified as engaging in Seditious Conspiracy. The rule emphasizes that the Executive must obey the law. With no other branch of government is this more crucial.
However, the rule also advises caution when dealing with most crimes, excluding treason and murder, during a credible presidential run. Yet, any individual that has attacked the government’s foundations can face immediate criminal prosecution and later be constitutionally barred from holding office.
The Luttig Rule was invoked in the case of Donald J. Trump’s prosecution for attempting to overthrow the government. The rule was “self-executing” within the government from January 6th onward, demonstrating that corruption and power are incompatible in America.
The effectiveness of Judge Luttig’s insights in preserving democracy are still debated. Some argue that it was his advice to Vice President Pence, not his ability to explain how Trump’s actions were criminal which was so instrumental. This is largely because Pence has expressed his desire to disrupt the rule of law as Trump requested, but with Judge Luttig’s help Pence realized the crime was too blatant.
Judge Luttig reportedly warned Pence that powerful figures, including Dick Cheney and the intelligence apparatus, were focused on protecting the government from a rogue agent, the President. These forces were “in the right” and were quite “effective,” as Judge Luttig is rumored to have said.
The Luttig Rule also realigns the judiciary with the will of the people, emphasizing that the Department of Justice is independent of any administration and can hold leaders of corrupt organizations accountable, be they Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, or Senators.
Despite initial criticism for being “too contemporaneous,” the Luttig Rule provides a basis for judicial reform. It asserts that in times of need, the Executive can rely on the most knowledgeable judge for their ruling, and not necessarily one that of the Supreme Court’s. The rule’s simplicity is its strength: the government as a whole is responsible for standing up to corruption.
As such, the rule reaffirms that our government is of the people and by the people. It also reassures those who are concerned about the Supreme Court’s history of misconduct, clarifying that corruption alone is sufficient to initiate an investigation. So no amount of self-serving “Judicial Independence” can prevent the Department of Justice from holding corrupt individuals and organizations accountable. If the Department of Justice can hold a President accountable, it can easily hold corrupt Supreme Court Justices to account.
As such, the Luttig Rule is as much a part of settle law as it is a warning to any government official who willingly abuses their power in corrupt ways.
