SCR 66 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution recognizing Law Day and designating May 1 as Law Day in California. The resolution recites the history of Law Day as a national observance tied to the rule of law, originally promoted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and later designated by Congress for May 1. It frames the observance as a way to highlight the importance of law in civic life, legal education, and public understanding of the justice system.
The resolution also takes a strong position on current events affecting the legal profession. It states that executive orders and related federal actions used to pressure law firms, discourage legal representation, or retaliate against attorneys and judges are an unlawful attack on the right to seek counsel and on the rule of law. It specifically references actions against several named law firms and describes litigation and amicus support from California firms as a response to those actions.
Impact
As a concurrent resolution, SCR 66 does not amend the California Codes or create enforceable state-law duties. Its legal effect is primarily declaratory and commemorative: it formally designates May 1 as Law Day in California and expresses the Legislature’s position supporting the legal profession and the rule of law. The measure may be cited as an official statement of legislative sentiment, but it does not change substantive rights, procedures, or regulatory authority.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been generally supported in the Legislature, with unanimous committee adoption votes and a strong majority on Senate third reading. The resolution’s tone is emphatic and partisan, reflecting clear approval from supporters of the legal community and of Law Day as a civic observance. The voting history suggests broad enough support to pass, though not without some opposition on the floor.
Contention
The main point of contention is the resolution’s explicit criticism of President Trump and his administration’s executive orders affecting law firms, judges, and legal advocacy. Supporters view those actions as coercive and harmful to the rule of law, while opponents likely object to the resolution’s partisan framing, its characterization of federal actions, and its use of a commemorative resolution to make a broader political statement. The measure also references DEI policies, immigration representation, security clearances, and federal contracts, which are likely to have been politically sensitive issues.
A resolution to condemn political violence in all forms and affirm the commitment of the Michigan House of Representatives to civility, safety, and the peaceful exercise of democracy.