ABSTRACT
The argument advanced in this chapter is that the democratic rule of law, when not perverted by political, religious or other bias, operates inherently to defend the general public interest including, as envisioned by the U.S. Constitution, protecting the vulnerable from discrimination under the law. The chapter discussion centres on two highly contentious recent U.S. cases in which the democratic rule of law is put on trial. These cases involve assessing if and how the First Amendment right to religious freedom and freedom of speech are implicated in the case context at hand and what is in the public interest in resolving the dispute. The question for the courts in these cases is, on the view here, whether rule of law will, in practice, for whatever reason, be disassociated in the court’s analysis from general public interest considerations. If the latter be the case, this would put democracy and its fundamental human rights foundation itself in peril. It is here contended, therefore, that such court judgements serve to shape the very conception of democracy in the United States at a time when the world is facing the spectre of rising authoritarian populist movements in the midst of multiple diverse humanitarian crises.
