Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

Opinion

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

​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less