Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Law Day 2025: A Perfect Time for Attorneys To Reaffirm Their Oath

Law Day 2025: A Perfect Time for Attorneys To Reaffirm Their Oath

A gavel in front of the U.S. flag.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Each year on May 1st, the United States marks Law Day—a national observance that many Americans have never heard of, despite its six-decade history. Established in 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Law Day is meant to honor the rule of law and reflect on its essential role in safeguarding liberty, promoting justice, and upholding the freedoms we often take for granted.

Each year, Law Day centers on a theme that highlights a fundamental aspect of the American legal and constitutional system. The theme for 2025, "The Constitution’s Promise: Out of Many, One," underscores the ideals of unity, shared responsibility, and the binding promise of our Constitution.


This year, a group of lawyers from across the country is taking that commitment a step further by encouraging fellow attorneys to participate in #ReaffirmTheOath—a nonpartisan grassroots campaign encouraging lawyers in communities large and small to publicly renew their commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. It’s a powerful act of solidarity and civic leadership at a moment when the legal profession itself is under mounting pressure.

In recent years, we've witnessed an alarming erosion of trust in our democratic institutions—including efforts to discredit judges, intimidate election officials, and politicize the judiciary. Lawyers, law firms, and public servants have found themselves targeted simply for doing their jobs. #ReaffirmTheOath is a response to these attacks, offering a unifying platform for attorneys to stand up for the Constitution, the legal system, and the democratic principles they are sworn to uphold.

Led by volunteer lawyers, Checks and Balances Now is a legal and civic education initiative created by a group of lawyers. “The question I have heard for the past months from lawyer colleagues is ‘What can I do?’” said Cheryl Niro, former President of the Illinois State Bar Association and one of the organizers. “Reaffirming our Oath by making a public recommitment to our sacred duty to step up to defend and protect the Constitution and the Rule of Law is the best answer I could think of. Demonstrating that we are bound by the promise we made when we received our license to practice should help Americans understand it is our job, and we stand together to fulfill our obligation.” With the support of the American Bar Association's (ABA) Task Force for American Democracy and inspired by the Task Force's urgent call to action, Checks and Balances Now was launched to strengthen public understanding of the rule of law and democracy.

The ABA task force leaders include an impressive group of attorneys, encompassing all political perspectives. You can meet the task force at: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/election_law/american-democracy/about/

The mission of the ABA Task Force for American Democracy is to:

  • Inspire and mobilize America’s duty-bound legal profession to actively support and defend American democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
  • Ensure that lawyers are educated and held accountable to their professional obligations to support and defend our democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
  • Leverage the legal profession to educate the public on the reasons for, and the importance of, democracy and the rule of law.

Through #ReaffirmOurOath, the legal profession is being asked not just to recite words but to model the integrity and civic responsibility that democracy demands. You can find more information and see how to get involved with #ReaffirmTheOath here: https://www.checksandbalancesnow.org/events.

In turn, it is our hope that millions of Americans across our nation will understand the importance of the rule of law and the institutions that uphold life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our great nation.

The Fulcrum supports this effort to make Law Day 2025 a powerful moment for the legal profession to lead with clarity, integrity, and purpose. In doing so, they help ensure that the rule of law remains not only a legal ideal but a living promise to every American.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits
How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images

Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches—particularly in how federal courts can respond to presidential actions.

Keep ReadingShow less