Ronald Dworkin (1986) offered the most sophisticated modern account, avoiding both the mechanical obedience of positivism and the moral anarchy of radical natural law.
Example: In Riggs v. Palmer (1889), a murderer claimed his inheritance under his victim’s will. The statute said nothing about murder. Dworkin argues the faithful judge must deny the inheritance because the common law principle that "no one shall profit from their own wrong" is part of the law. fidelity to law meaning
Legal philosopher Lon Fuller argued that for a legal system to exist at all, it must possess "internal morality"—rules must be clear, consistent, and possible to follow. Fidelity, in this view, is a two-way street: citizens owe fidelity to the law only when the state shows fidelity to the principles of legality. Ronald Dworkin (1986) offered the most sophisticated modern
Even in well-ordered societies, a faithful application of law may produce unjust outcomes. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws can force judges to impose 10-year sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. A judge who follows the statute exhibits fidelity to law but may perpetrate an injustice. What then? Example: In Riggs v
Some legal systems permit "equitable discretion" or departures in hard cases. Others insist that the judge’s role is to apply law, and if the law is unjust, the legislature—not the judge—must fix it. This clash between fidelity and mercy has produced centuries of debate between legal formalists and legal realists.
In the 20th century, legal philosopher Lon Fuller proposed that for fidelity to be meaningful, law itself must possess certain qualities: generality, publicity, prospectivity (not retroactive), clarity, consistency, practicability, stability, and congruence between official action and declared rule. Without these, Fuller argued, citizens owe no fidelity because the system is not truly "law."