The American legal system is undergoing a seismic shift. Amid rising populist nationalism, courts appear increasingly deferential to executive authority, especially under the returning presidency of Donald J. Trump. This realignment has created a profound existential and professional crisis for many attorneys whose identities and careers have been shaped by a deeply internalized belief in the power of the judiciary to serve as a bulwark against executive overreach. The psychological strain now confronting the American legal community is not merely political or institutional—it is profoundly personal. As courts retreat from their once-robust role in checking executive action, attorneys must confront a loss of meaning, purpose, and perceived agency. For many, the path forward will require an internal reckoning akin to the stages of grief, culminating in a transformative acceptance of a constitutional order in flux.
This article explores the unique psychological and institutional stressors facing U.S. attorneys as the judiciary’s capacity to restrain executive action diminishes. Drawing from constitutional law, political theory, and therapeutic psychology, it proposes that adaptive functioning in this shifting paradigm demands a reorientation of professional identity, a conscious grieving process, and a radical embrace of evolving forms of advocacy within a system increasingly shaped by executive dominance.
The Diminishing Role of the Judiciary in the American Constitutional Order
(A) Historical Foundations of Judicial Authority
Since Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary has served as a cornerstone of the American constitutional system, with the power of judicial review enshrining courts as guardians of individual rights and checks against majoritarian overreach. For generations, attorneys have viewed the courts as arenas in which constitutional wrongs are rectified, and through which executive overreach can be constrained.
(B) The Expansion of Executive Power in the Trump Era
President Trump’s administrations—past and present—have tested the elasticity of executive power in ways unmatched since the New Deal. With recent judicial appointments and increasingly favorable rulings from the Supreme Court, including decisions curtailing the administrative state and weakening doctrines like Chevron deference, the legal landscape now permits far greater executive latitude. This has left many attorneys questioning not only the strategic value of litigation as a tool for social change but also their broader role within a system that seems to prize executive will over deliberative constitutional adjudication.
Psychological Fallout: Grieving a Vanishing Constitutional Order
(A) Attorneys and Constitutional Idealism
Legal training in the United States is infused with reverence for constitutional structure and the ideals of separation of powers. Law students are inculcated with a sense of moral mission, grounded in a belief that the law, especially as enforced by the courts, is capable of constraining injustice. This belief is more than professional; it is existential. When the system shifts beneath their feet—when the judiciary becomes passive or complicit—attorneys suffer a profound disorientation.
(B) The Stages of Grief in Legal Consciousness
The shift toward executive supremacy and the retreat of judicial resistance evoke a collective mourning among attorneys. Many are experiencing classic stages of grief:
(1) Denial — Belief that the courts will eventually intervene or that this is a temporary aberration;
(2) Anger — Directed at the judiciary, at opposing counsel, at clients, and at a broader society seen as abandoning rule-of-law norms;
(3) Bargaining — Attempts to double down on litigation strategy or seek refuge in constitutional technicalities;
(4) Depression — A numbing sense of futility as attorneys feel they no longer serve as meaningful guardians of justice;
(5) Acceptance — The transformative realization that while the terrain has shifted, advocacy remains possible—albeit in new forms.
The Dangers of Attachment and Resistance to Change
(A) Constitutional Attachment as Identity Fixation
Drawing from psychological theories, particularly Buddhist psychology and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), the suffering attorneys now face may stem not solely from external changes but from rigid attachment to internalized ideals. These ideals—of judicial supremacy, constitutional permanence, and the attorney’s quasi-sacred role within that order—have created psychological inflexibility. This attachment mirrors the Buddhist concept of upādāna(clinging), which posits that suffering arises from clinging to impermanent constructs as if they were permanent.
(B) Professional Burnout and Resentment
Without psychological flexibility, attorneys risk descending into chronic resentment and burnout. Continued resistance to the new constitutional reality—rather than adapting to it—may foster cynicism, rage, and despair. These emotional states, if unprocessed, will not fuel meaningful resistance but will instead lead to alienation and disempowerment. This is especially acute among public interest lawyers and constitutional litigators whose careers are deeply tied to the belief in the judiciary as an agent of justice.
Toward Adaptive Change: Acceptance and Reimagined Advocacy
(A) Redefining the Role of the Attorney
Acceptance does not mean acquiescence. It means recognizing and ceasing to deny reality in order to act effectively within it. For attorneys, this means relinquishing the fantasy of the courts as omnipotent guardians and embracing alternative modes of constitutional advocacy—legislative work, grassroots organizing, local-level litigation, and client-centered strategies that acknowledge constraints while preserving dignity.
(B) Cultivating Psychological Flexibility
Attorneys must be encouraged to cultivate psychological flexibility—the capacity to act effectively even in the presence of discomfort, loss, and uncertainty. This involves a mindful acceptance of the current legal-political landscape, a willingness to confront one’s own anger and grief, and an openness to redefine success beyond precedent and procedural wins.
(C) Embracing Constitutional Evolution
The Constitution, like all human systems, evolves. Attorneys who understand this can begin to see that their professional worth does not reside in preserving a specific judicial balance but in embodying constitutional values—dignity, liberty, fairness—regardless of institutional terrain. By adapting their strategies and self-conception, attorneys can reassert influence in new and meaningful ways.
Conclusion
The psychological crisis now facing the American legal profession is real and profound. As executive power expands and judicial constraint recedes, attorneys must come to terms with a constitutional order that no longer guarantees them the institutional levers they once relied upon. But within this loss lies opportunity—the chance to evolve, to reimagine advocacy, and to reaffirm commitment to justice in ways that transcend specific legal institutions.
Grieving the loss of a once-familiar constitutional role is painful, but essential. Through grief, acceptance, and adaptive transformation, attorneys can rediscover purpose and effectiveness. They may no longer be the high priests of a judicial temple, but they remain stewards of constitutional values—resilient, redefined, and ready to meet the moment.
