Donald Trump is the President-Elect with both houses of Congress at his disposal. He promises judicial nominations to help bring the courts under his sway. He invokes authoritarian rulers as paragons of leadership. Trump’s instinctive reaction to dissent is not to listen, but to destroy. And what hopes lie in the moderating norms of the presidency are obliterated by Twitter outbursts. The future of the separation-of-powers looks bleak.

Many have thus taken solace at the prospect of another presidential check: the federal bureaucracy (see, e.g., here, here, and here). Career staff are a diverse bunch, but what unites them is their tenure and salary protections; by law, they are hired on the basis of merit, not political ties. As a result, they often enter government with professional norms informed by technical or legal training. Moreover, political appointees cannot fire them without a costly fight. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the federal bureaucracy takes the long view.

It is thus the right time to ask what levers of resistance are available to civil servants. These levers may be especially attractive to those faced with one of several prospects: top-down orders to carry out illegal tasks, suppress information, or doctor technical documents. This question also arises at a time when many law students are questioning whether they should enter government service. Their deepest worries are not so much partisan as motivated by fears they will be directed to violate their legal or ethical obligations.

Read more at Yale Journal on Regulation: Notice & Comment