When Law Becomes a Weapon
The rule of law is often hailed as civilization’s greatest achievement. It promises fairness, equality, and accountability – a bulwark against chaos and tyranny. Yet history, and our present moment, remind us that law is only as just as the people and institutions who wield it. In the wrong hands, the law itself can become the sharpest weapon in the authoritarian arsenal.
How Authoritarians Bend the Law
Authoritarian regimes rarely present themselves as lawless. On the contrary, they often wrap their repressions in a veneer of legality. From Stalin’s “show trials” in the Soviet Union to modern-day China’s sweeping “national security” framework in Hong Kong, the tactic is clear: instead of abandoning the rule of law, they weaponize it against dissenters, journalists, and ordinary citizens.
Legal scholar David Dyzenhaus has argued that authoritarian leaders understand the symbolic power of legality – rules, courts, and procedures provide legitimacy, even when outcomes are predetermined (The Constitution of Law, 2006). In this way, authoritarian systems cloak repression in process, giving persecution the appearance of due process.
Contemporary Examples Abroad
Russia: Laws against “extremism” and “foreign agents” have been used to shut down NGOs, independent media, and opposition groups. Even Nobel Prize-winning journalist Dmitry Muratov’s newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, was suspended under these rules (Human Rights Watch, 2022).
China: The 2020 Hong Kong National Security Law criminalized vaguely defined acts of “secession” and “subversion,” effectively ending the city’s tradition of free expression and assembly (Amnesty International).
Turkey: President Erdoğan’s government has prosecuted tens of thousands under broad anti-terrorism laws, often for little more than criticizing the state online (Freedom House, 2023).
Iran: Women’s rights activists face prison terms under “morality laws” that codify dress codes and behavior, with harsh penalties for dissenters (UN OHCHR, 2022).
Each of these regimes uses law not to uphold justice but to redefine dissent as illegality.
The United States: Lawfare in a Democracy
It is tempting to treat weaponized law as a problem “elsewhere,” but democracies are not immune. In fact, the United States has long walked the knife’s edge between law as shield and law as cudgel.
One stark example is the use of expansive anti-terror laws after 9/11. The USA PATRIOT Act (2001) dramatically increased government surveillance and detention powers under the banner of security. While justified as essential to prevent further attacks, critics warned that it normalized indefinite detention, bulk data collection, and the erosion of civil liberties (ACLU).
But nowhere is the tension more visible than in the U.S. Supreme Court. Designed to be the impartial guardian of the Constitution, it has increasingly become a battleground of partisan maneuvering. The blocking of Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016, followed by the rapid confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, revealed how procedural rules could be bent in pursuit of partisan advantage (Brookings, 2020).
The consequences are profound. In recent years, rulings have reshaped the American landscape:
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating a federal constitutional right to abortion and returning the issue to states – an outcome celebrated by some but seen as judicial activism by others.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013) gutted the Voting Rights Act, allowing states with histories of voter suppression to change election laws without federal preclearance. The result has been a wave of restrictive voting measures (Brennan Center, 2022).
Citizens United v. FEC (2010) unleashed corporate spending in elections, amplifying the political voice of wealth while drowning out ordinary citizens.
Critics argue that the Court has ceased to be a neutral arbiter and has become a political tool in its own right. As legal scholar Stephen Vladeck puts it, “The Court has become a partisan actor, and its legitimacy is eroding because the public sees it as part of the political fight, not above it” (The Shadow Docket, 2023).
Why It Works
Weaponized law is insidious precisely because it preserves the appearance of order. A jailed journalist is not, officially, a victim of arbitrary power – they are a “criminal” convicted under statute. Similarly, when rights are stripped away by a Supreme Court ruling, it is cloaked not as political preference but as “constitutional interpretation.”
Political theorist Carl Schmitt once noted that authoritarian leaders thrive on defining the “exception” – moments when normal rules don’t apply (Political Theology, 1922). Modern lawfare goes further: it writes exceptions into law itself, making repression or restriction a permanent feature of the legal code.
The Global Risk
Whether in Moscow or Washington, lawfare corrodes trust in institutions. If people believe that courts and legal systems are simply weapons of the powerful, faith in democracy itself falters. The danger is not just injustice in individual cases – it is the slow normalization of cynicism, the sense that legality is only a mask for power.
A Compelling Paradox
The paradox is this: law can protect freedom only if it resists being used as a tool of unfreedom. That requires independent courts, strong civil society, and vigilance from citizens who refuse to accept legality as legitimacy. It also requires humility from lawmakers and judges who recognize that their legitimacy depends on fairness, not just formal power.
As Václav Havel, the Czech dissident who became president, once put it: “The law is only as strong as the people who are willing to fight for its spirit, not just its letter.” When law becomes a weapon, justice is not just denied – it is mocked. And yet, precisely because the rule of law holds such symbolic weight, it also remains a battlefield worth fighting for.