SCR 66 is a California concurrent resolution that (1) calls using executive orders to punish or intimidate law firms an unlawful attack on Americans’ right to seek counsel and (2) designates May 1 as Law Day for the state to show solidarity with the legal community. The resolution catalogs recent federal executive actions and directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies for distribution.
This is a declaratory, nonbinding measure: it does not create statutory rights or remedies, but it formalizes the Legislature’s view of recent federal conduct and establishes an annual state recognition intended to signal support for lawyers, firms, and the broader rule-of-law norms that undergird legal representation in California.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution condemns the use of executive orders to intimidate or penalize law firms and declares such conduct an unlawful attack on the right to counsel. It also designates May 1 as California Law Day and instructs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution for distribution.
Who It Affects
The measure speaks directly to the legal profession — law firms, practicing attorneys, and bar organizations — and to Californians who rely on legal representation. It also signals to federal executive actors, state officials, and courts that the Legislature has taken an official position on recent executive actions.
Why It Matters
Although symbolic, the resolution consolidates the state's official judgment about a set of federal actions, names specific alleged tactics (security-clearance revocations, contract terminations, access denials), and creates a recurring public observance that could shape advocacy, public messaging, and legal-community morale in California.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SCR 66 opens with a series of factual findings: it recalls the origin of Law Day and then catalogs specific federal actions that the resolution says amount to an assault on the legal profession. The bill cites a February 25, 2025 directive to revoke a firm's security clearances and a set of March–April 2025 executive orders that the text says revoked clearances, denied federal building access, and terminated government contracts against several law firms.
It also references alleged targeting through agency enforcement and public pressures, including cited actions against firms over DEI programs and representation of political opponents.
After the findings, the resolution states the Legislature’s conclusions: it labels the use of executive orders for these ends as an unlawful attack on the right of Americans to seek counsel and frames the Office of the Presidency being used as a 'bludgeon' against those who disagree as an attack on the rule of law. The text also records that multiple firms have filed lawsuits challenging these executive actions and that hundreds of firms have filed amici briefs in support.The operative text is declaratory rather than regulatory: the Legislature designates May 1 as Law Day in California 'to stand in solidarity with the legal community' and requires the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution.
The resolution does not alter state statutes, impose penalties, or direct state agencies to take enforcement steps; its primary effect is to make an official legislative statement and create an annual observance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution explicitly calls the use of executive orders to silence opposition and chill legal advocacy 'an unlawful attack on the right of Americans to seek counsel.', It cites a February 25, 2025 directive to revoke security clearances of Covington & Burling LLP and references March–April 2025 executive orders targeting multiple firms.
Named firms in the preamble include Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, Morrison Foerster, Cooley, Munger Tolles, Keker Van Nest, Gibson Dunn, and others.
The text records that Perkins, Jenner, WilmerHale, and Susman have filed lawsuits challenging the executive orders and that hundreds of other firms have filed amici briefs in support.
The Legislature designates May 1 as Law Day in California and instructs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings: Law Day history and catalog of alleged federal actions
This section sets out the factual predicates the Legislature relied on: a short history of Law Day and a detailed list of recent federal actions the resolution condemns. It names dates (e.g., Feb. 25, 2025) and specific firms, and describes the alleged actions—security-clearance revocations, access denials, contract terminations, and agency pressures on firms with DEI policies—which create the narrative basis for the Legislature's declaratory language.
Declaration that using executive orders to silence legal advocacy is unlawful
This operative clause is a categorical finding: the Legislature declares those federal uses of executive power 'an unlawful attack' on the right to counsel. Practically, this is a political and moral judgment rather than a provision that changes legal standards or creates enforceable private rights; it communicates the state’s official position and may be used as a reference point in public and legal advocacy.
Condemnation of presidential use of office to punish dissent
The resolution separately labels the use of the presidency to target those who 'uphold the law and disagree' as an assault on the rule of law. The sentence amplifies the first declaration and broadens the critique to include calls for impeachment of judges and other coercive tactics described in the preamble, reinforcing the Legislature’s posture toward federal conduct.
Designation of May 1 as Law Day and administrative transmittal
The final clauses create the recurring observance—May 1 is designated Law Day for California—and direct the Senate’s Secretary to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution. These are procedural and symbolic mechanics: the designation establishes an annual commemorative date but imposes no duties on state agencies beyond limited administrative distribution.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Named law firms and the broader legal profession — they receive an official state expression of support and solidarity that can bolster public perception, professional morale, and advocacy leverage in parallel litigation.
- Clients relying on representation, particularly in immigration and politically sensitive matters — the resolution publicly affirms the value of counseled representation, which may help mobilize advocacy and amicus efforts to protect access to counsel.
- Bar associations and legal advocacy groups — the designation of a state Law Day is a platform for programming, public education, and coordination that supports their mission to promote rule-of-law principles.
Who Bears the Cost
- The federal executive branch and the named administration — the resolution imposes reputational costs by cataloging and condemning specific actions, which can deepen intergovernmental friction without changing federal authority.
- California’s state political actors — by adopting a pointed critique of federal conduct, the Legislature risks escalating partisan tensions that could complicate federal-state collaboration on programs and contracting.
- Law firms with federal contracts or clearance-dependent work — the resolution’s public spotlight may intensify scrutiny of firms’ federal relationships and could accelerate politicized contracting or clearance reviews by federal actors.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between symbolic defense of the rule of law and the limits of state power: the Legislature wants to signal strong support for legal representation and condemn perceived federal abuses, but the resolution cannot change federal executive actions and risks intensifying intergovernmental conflict without delivering practical protections for lawyers or clients.
SCR 66 is a declaratory concurrent resolution: its primary legal effect is expressive rather than regulatory. The text repeatedly characterizes certain federal actions as 'unlawful,' yet it creates no statutory cause of action, no state-level remedy, and no prohibition on the federal executive branch.
That gap matters because the measure’s capacity to protect attorneys or reverse federal decisions is purely rhetorical; any concrete relief still depends on litigation against federal actors or separate statutory remedies.
The resolution also carries implementation and political trade-offs. Naming specific individuals, firms, and dates anchors the Legislature’s claim in verifiable events, but it invites factual dispute and partisan pushback.
While legislative speech is broadly protected, the decision to single out named firms and an identified President increases the likelihood of reciprocal political escalation, potential impacts on federal-state cooperation, and reputational fallout for firms that do business with federal agencies. Finally, by focusing on symbolism (designation of Law Day and a public condemnation), the measure leaves unresolved the practical question of how the state will defend access to counsel in cases where federal policies materially disrupt representation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.