March 29, 2025
ALTERNET
Two months into his second presidency, Donald Trump is aggressively attacking both judges and law firms. Trump is calling for judges who are blocking his executive orders to be impeached, and he is trying to make life difficult for major law firms that represent his political foes by pulling their security clearances.
Some major firms are making concessions in the hope of making peace with Trump, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Full disclosure: this journalist's mother was employed by Skadden, Arps during the 1980s.
In an op-ed published on March 29, the New York Times' David Enrich analyzes Trump's motivations for targeting major law firms.
"Mr. Trump and his administration's lawyers are fighting in court," Enrich explains, "but they are also pursuing a much more ambitious and consequential goal: deterring lawyers from suing his administration in the first place. In a series of recent executive orders, Mr. Trump has restricted the ability of some major law firms, including those that employed his perceived political enemies, to interact with the federal government. Among the president's stated rationales was that some of the work done by the firms gets in the way of his administration's immigration and other policies."
In a March 22 memo, Enrich notes, Trump directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi "to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States."
Enrich argues, "Those adjectives are fuzzy, but the threats are clear. Giant law firms tend to have lucrative businesses helping corporate clients get their way with the federal government, whether it is winning contracts or defusing investigations or minimizing the impact of regulations. Being penalized by the government would be bad for business. Mr. Trump's recent broadsides have stunned the legal industry, many of whose practitioners pride themselves on pursuing cases against perceived overreach by both Republican and Democratic administrations."
Enrich points out that Trump's executive orders "have revealed stark differences in how powerful law firms want to handle an aggressive and unpredictable president."
"Three firms have sued to block Mr. Trump's orders, calling them blatantly unconstitutional," Enrich observes. "On Friday evening, (March 28), federal judges in Washington issued temporary restraining orders granting two of the firms, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, relief from the executive orders. Two others — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — struck deals with the president to avoid or rescind such orders. Regardless, Mr. Trump's moves have the potential — and perhaps the goal — to undermine people's ability to challenge their government."
David Enrich's full New York Times analysis is available at this link (subscription required).
ALTERNET
Two months into his second presidency, Donald Trump is aggressively attacking both judges and law firms. Trump is calling for judges who are blocking his executive orders to be impeached, and he is trying to make life difficult for major law firms that represent his political foes by pulling their security clearances.
Some major firms are making concessions in the hope of making peace with Trump, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Full disclosure: this journalist's mother was employed by Skadden, Arps during the 1980s.
In an op-ed published on March 29, the New York Times' David Enrich analyzes Trump's motivations for targeting major law firms.
"Mr. Trump and his administration's lawyers are fighting in court," Enrich explains, "but they are also pursuing a much more ambitious and consequential goal: deterring lawyers from suing his administration in the first place. In a series of recent executive orders, Mr. Trump has restricted the ability of some major law firms, including those that employed his perceived political enemies, to interact with the federal government. Among the president's stated rationales was that some of the work done by the firms gets in the way of his administration's immigration and other policies."
In a March 22 memo, Enrich notes, Trump directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi "to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States."
Enrich argues, "Those adjectives are fuzzy, but the threats are clear. Giant law firms tend to have lucrative businesses helping corporate clients get their way with the federal government, whether it is winning contracts or defusing investigations or minimizing the impact of regulations. Being penalized by the government would be bad for business. Mr. Trump's recent broadsides have stunned the legal industry, many of whose practitioners pride themselves on pursuing cases against perceived overreach by both Republican and Democratic administrations."
Enrich points out that Trump's executive orders "have revealed stark differences in how powerful law firms want to handle an aggressive and unpredictable president."
"Three firms have sued to block Mr. Trump's orders, calling them blatantly unconstitutional," Enrich observes. "On Friday evening, (March 28), federal judges in Washington issued temporary restraining orders granting two of the firms, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, relief from the executive orders. Two others — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — struck deals with the president to avoid or rescind such orders. Regardless, Mr. Trump's moves have the potential — and perhaps the goal — to undermine people's ability to challenge their government."
David Enrich's full New York Times analysis is available at this link (subscription required).
'What possible threat do they pose?' Judge grills Trump DOJ attorney over law firm threats
U.S. President Donald Trump holds an executive order, at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 25, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Carl Gibson
Click here to read the Journal's report in full (subscription required).
U.S. President Donald Trump holds an executive order, at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 25, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Carl Gibson
March 29, 2025
ALTERNET
President Donald Trump has recently issued a wave of executive orders targeting law firms that represented some of his political opponents, along with firms where his opponents previously worked. But some of those firms are fighting back, and scoring big wins against the Trump administration in court.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale both sued Trump over his executive orders, which stripped their attorneys of security clearances, barred them from government buildings and directed federal agencies to cancel active contracts with the firms. In the case of WilmerHale, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon (who was appointed by former President George W. Bush) granted the firm a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking Trump's executive order from going into effect.
"The injuries to [WilmerHale] would be severe and spill over to its clients and the justice system at large," Judge Leon wrote.
During Friday afternoon's hearing in Leon's courtroom, the Republican-appointed judge was reportedly "incredulous" when questioning an attorney representing the Trump administration's Department of Justice, according to NBC News reporter Gary Grumbach. Leon pointed out that the E. Barrett Prettyman District of Columbia courthouse was in the same category of buildings that the administration was seeking to prevent the firm's staff from entering.
"What possible threat do they pose from having access to government buildings?" Leon said. “This is a government building."
The white-shoe law firm Perkins Coie was also targeted by one of Trump's executive orders, but the firm's attorneys have held fast and fought back, and some of the firm's clients have reportedly sought to have more work sent to Perkins Coie as a form of encouragement. Some of its top clients, like Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Intel and even the Seattle Seahawks NFL team have refused to cut their contracts in spite of Trump's attacks.
Not all of the targets of Trump's rage have stood up to him. Last week, the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss) agreed to provide $40 million worth of pro bono work on causes important to the Trump administration in order for Trump to rescind his order targeting the firm, which some critics described as a "shakedown." Trump also agreed to a similar deal with the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom (Skadden) on Friday for $100 million in pro bono services. Both Paul Weiss and Skadden also agreed to not hire new attorneys based on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.
President Donald Trump has recently issued a wave of executive orders targeting law firms that represented some of his political opponents, along with firms where his opponents previously worked. But some of those firms are fighting back, and scoring big wins against the Trump administration in court.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale both sued Trump over his executive orders, which stripped their attorneys of security clearances, barred them from government buildings and directed federal agencies to cancel active contracts with the firms. In the case of WilmerHale, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon (who was appointed by former President George W. Bush) granted the firm a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking Trump's executive order from going into effect.
"The injuries to [WilmerHale] would be severe and spill over to its clients and the justice system at large," Judge Leon wrote.
During Friday afternoon's hearing in Leon's courtroom, the Republican-appointed judge was reportedly "incredulous" when questioning an attorney representing the Trump administration's Department of Justice, according to NBC News reporter Gary Grumbach. Leon pointed out that the E. Barrett Prettyman District of Columbia courthouse was in the same category of buildings that the administration was seeking to prevent the firm's staff from entering.
"What possible threat do they pose from having access to government buildings?" Leon said. “This is a government building."
The white-shoe law firm Perkins Coie was also targeted by one of Trump's executive orders, but the firm's attorneys have held fast and fought back, and some of the firm's clients have reportedly sought to have more work sent to Perkins Coie as a form of encouragement. Some of its top clients, like Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Intel and even the Seattle Seahawks NFL team have refused to cut their contracts in spite of Trump's attacks.
Not all of the targets of Trump's rage have stood up to him. Last week, the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss) agreed to provide $40 million worth of pro bono work on causes important to the Trump administration in order for Trump to rescind his order targeting the firm, which some critics described as a "shakedown." Trump also agreed to a similar deal with the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom (Skadden) on Friday for $100 million in pro bono services. Both Paul Weiss and Skadden also agreed to not hire new attorneys based on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.
Click here to read the Journal's report in full (subscription required).
No comments:
Post a Comment