Defending the Citadel
It's April 1952. U.S. troops are dying in Korea, President Harry Truman's popularity is cratering, and steel is the 'arsenal of democracy.' When union leaders threaten a strike, Truman issues Executive Order 10340 and seizes every major steel mill in the country. Now, a bit of alternate history: Before the mills can sue, the White House circulates a memo directing the attorney general to seek sanctions against any law firm that challenges the administration and rolls out firm-specific executive orders threatening to tear up existing defense contracts, yank security clearances, and blacklist any businesses that work with those firms.
The pressure works. Several marquee firms planning to challenge the order stand down; their corporate clients can't risk losing multimillion-dollar government contracts. Public-interest firms that contemplate stepping in are barred from entering government-seized mills to investigate, while their board members and donors weigh the risks of being labeled supporters of 'subversive' organizations. No lawsuit is filed. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer never reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, and Truman's sweeping claim of wartime power becomes a tool available to all future administrations.
That disturbing alternate history is no longer hypothetical. Today's White House has a strategy to erase tomorrow's landmark checks on executive power by punishing firms that would bring such cases in the first place. Specifically, the administration is wielding two separate weapons: (1) a memorandum ordering the Justice Department to pursue sanctions against attorneys who file 'unreasonable' and 'vexatious' lawsuits; and (2) tailor–made executive orders that cancel current federal contracts, revoke security clearances, and blacklist the clients of a number of named law firms. If the administration successfully bullies lawyers away from the courthouse, the Constitution won't merely be stretched. It will be sidelined entirely.
With the Founders' emphasis on rigorous judicial review in mind, the White House's intimidation of law firms is an existential threat to the rule of law. The basic presumption underlying our judicial system is that, to preserve life, liberty, and property, government actions must be testable in an adversarial process where independent judges apply meaningful constitutional scrutiny. If, instead, the president starves the pipeline of litigation, the White House has effectively outmaneuvered the entire system.
Since the Founding, presidents of all persuasions have pressed for new powers or exemptions in the name of war, national security, financial crises, or public health. Sometimes judges insisted on robust evidence and careful alignment with enumerated authority, forcing the executive to justify or scale back the scope of its actions. But in other moments, the courts did little to stand in the way—or worse, rationalized the executive's misbehavior. A shameful example is Korematsu v. United States (1944), where the Court upheld the mass internment of Japanese Americans; Justice Robert H. Jackson warned in dissent that the decision sanctioned a principle that 'lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.'
When the public cheers the White House's assumptions of expanding authority, courts can be tempted to acquiesce. Those expansions pile up, decade after decade, shifting the balance of power the Constitution was carefully designed to maintain. The alternative is a tense but necessary clash between the branches, one that has heated up in recent years: The president issues sweeping executive orders, certain federal courts halt or slow down the implementation of those orders, and the White House publicly rails against 'activist judges.' Is that ideal? Certainly not. But this dynamic is still more or less in keeping with the checks-and-balances design—assuming the judges stand by their rulings and the president challenges unfavorable rulings through the appellate process.
That friction is hardly new. In 2015, a federal district court in Texas halted President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, leading the White House to denounce the ruling as an inappropriate obstacle to 'lawful, commonsense' immigration reform. And in Trump's first term, a federal district court judge in Hawaii enjoined portions of his 'travel ban,' a ruling that the president called a 'ridiculous' decision made by a 'so-called judge.'
Yet for all their fierceness, those fights involved a direct executive-judiciary clash that remained in public view. Litigation was happening. Courts weighed evidence, analyzed arguments, and explained their reasoning. If the White House believed that a broad injunction was truly overkill, it could (and did) ask higher courts to narrow the injunction or expedite the government's appeal. If the White House believed that a lower court decision was wrong on the merits, it could (and did) appeal. That's how the system is supposed to work. The president can square off with the courts in a public dispute—loud and messy, perhaps, but at least visible to the public and shaking, rather than shattering, our Constitutional order.
Now, though, the White House is simultaneously wielding a sanctions memo and issuing firm-specific executive orders that heap additional penalties on any practices that represent the Trump administration's critics. But who decides when vigorous advocacy against the administration becomes 'frivolous,' or whether a specific firm is engaged in 'dishonest and dangerous activity'? The administration, apparently.
The memorandum to the Department of Justice invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the rule designed to punish truly baseless or bad-faith lawsuits, which imposes a high standard so judges don't chill legitimate legal claims that might be novel or creative. (Courts reserve that remedy for objective abuses of the judicial system—think of the 2023 Mata v. Avianca fiasco, where lawyers were sanctioned after filing a brief that cited completely fabricated, AI-generated cases.) But don't let that nod to Rule 11 fool you. Courts don't easily grant Rule 11 sanctions, not because judges are too lax, but because they must ensure that only lawsuits without any factual or legal foundation are penalized. By making such determinations and imposing consequences outside the courts, however, the administration is effectively paying lip-service to Rule 11 while avoiding the judicial safeguards that protect ordinary advocacy.
The administration's maneuver is clever, to be sure. A sufficiently intimidated legal industry means no lawsuit, no judicial testing of executive action, no friction with the judicial branch, no losses in court, and more resources for the administration to focus into its other priorities. If enough attorneys bow out, an executive action could become effectively unreviewable. Even the most principled, engaged judge cannot address constitutional questions that never make it into court. It's akin to blocking the main road to the courthouse, ensuring a victory by default. Some large firms, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, have been willing to risk the White House's ire on principle, but they're also private businesses that weigh reputational and financial pressures. If the White House threatens to revoke a law firm's existing federal contracts and those of its clients for retaliatory reasons, or damage its reputation with clients, those existential threats will be enough for plenty of firms to cry uncle—even if some try to resist.
Whenever prior administrations even hinted at retaliating against specific law firms, the legal community—and ultimately the administration itself—treated it as an obvious breach of rule-of-law norms. In 2007, for example, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles 'Cully' Stimson went on the radio, read aloud a list of law firms representing detainees at the U.S. detention facility in Guantánamo Bay, and suggested that businesses should reconsider working with firms who 'represent the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001[.]' The backlash was swift: Bar associations condemned the remarks, businesses refused the thinly-veiled call for a boycott, the Pentagon publicly disavowed the statement, and Stimson resigned within three weeks. Today, the episode appears in professional-responsibility casebooks as a warning about unethical government retaliation—not as a blueprint. This White House, by contrast, has converted the same threat into official policy.
As the Trump administration's executive orders rolled out, firms responded in dramatically different ways. Some opted to avoid further confrontation by making deals with the White House, whether preemptively or after being targeted. Critics see these bargains as capitulations to the administration's bullying, while the firms have generally described them as pragmatic measures to avoid existential risks. Skadden Arps, for example, described its preemptive deal as being 'in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm.' Despite those risks, several targeted firms have chosen to fight back in an effort to hold the administration accountable in the open, before a judge, rather than giving in to private pressures behind closed doors. Yet even for these firms, the damage is likely already done: By refusing to strike a deal, wary clients may still walk away, important contracts are still in jeopardy, and firm resources are diverted into litigation—consequences that will linger even if they ultimately prevail in court.
These concerning developments recently stimulated a broad and diverse coalition of civil liberties organizations, including the Institute for Justice (where I work), the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others, to submit an amicus brief in support of the law firm Perkins Coie's lawsuit against the administration. The brief warns that if allowed to stand, the administration's tactics would 'chill any law firm from participating in similar advocacy' and 'deprive courts of the expert counsel necessary . . . for a full and fair adjudication' of constitutional issues. That result would not just be bad for lawyers, but for every American who might one day try to hold the government accountable through litigation.
In 1788, Anti-Federalist John Lamb warned Alexander Hamilton that any powers entrusted to the virtuous General Washington would one day pass to a far less scrupulous 'General Slushington.' Ultimately, the moral of that cautionary exchange is that the entire nation, including its future citizens, will reap whatever whirlwind we allow to be sown today. The measure one president uses to achieve your preferred outcome today will be in the hands of General Slushington tomorrow. The Founders knew that liberty is not long for a world where independent courts become rubber stamps or presidents can circumvent the judicial system entirely.
If the judicial citadel is meant to continue guarding personal liberty, judges must have the courage to meaningfully scrutinize government overreach, and lawyers must be free to represent clients of their choosing—without being singled out for professional annihilation.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California's senators push Pentagon for answers on deployment of hundreds of Marines to L.A.
California's two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do on the ground. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California. "A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them," Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. "That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable." California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation. The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about "the scope of the Marines' mission and duties." Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening. Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to "restore order" and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday. The notification, the senators said, "did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment." The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom's objection. The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965. Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States," but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state's governor. Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, "Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated." Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries. "It was heading in the wrong direction," Trump said Monday. "It's now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess." On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings. 'This is just absolutely unnecessary,' Bass said. 'People have asked me, 'What are the Marines going to do when they get here?' That's a good question. I have no idea.' On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Proof is in the pudding': Trump DOJ tells court it will seek dismissal of Abrego Garcia case
The Trump administration on Tuesday said it plans to seek the dismissal of a civil case ordering them to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the U.S., arguing in a new court filing that the case is now "moot," given that he is now back in U.S. custody. In the filing, lawyers for the Trump administration told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that they plan to submit an official motion to dismiss the case on "mootness grounds" by June 16. Justice Department officials said they have "done exactly what plaintiffs asked for and what this court ordered them to do" – that is, to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. from El Salvador, where he was deported under the Alien Enemies Act in March in what Trump officials acknowledged was an administrative error. But the filing is likely to do little to quell the mounting legal fight surrounding Abrego Garcia's detention and efforts to secure his return from Salvadorian custody. Federal Judge James Boasberg Finds Probable Cause To Hold Trump In Contempt Over Deportation Flights Upon being returned to the U.S., Abrego Garcia was immediately sent to Tennessee to face federal charges related to transporting undocumented immigrants in the U.S., stemming from an arrest years earlier. Read On The Fox News App Court documents show the Justice Department filed the charges against Abrego Garcia on May 21 – prompting a flurry of fresh questions as to when the investigation and impaneling of a grand jury would have taken place. Lawyers for Abrego Garcia described the timing of his return from Salvadorian custody as "pure farce," and told Xinis in a filing of their own late last week that they plan to file a sanctions motion against the government by Wednesday. Trump's Remarks Could Come Back To Bite Him In Abrego Garcia Deportation Battle They noted that lawyers for the Trump administration were continuing to tell the court, even six days after he was indicted, that they did not have the power to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. They also noted that, in their view, a contempt charge and sanctions against the government were warranted – reminding Xinis that the Maryland court still has jurisdiction over the civil case. Xinis, for her part, suggested last month that the Trump administration could be held in contempt for their refusal to comply with the court – describing their lack of candor in the discovery proceedings as beating a "frustrated and dead horse." Justice Kagan Snaps At Trump Lawyer In Major Case: 'Every Court Has Ruled Against You' Trump administration lawyers sought to dispel the notion that they intentionally flouted the court on Tuesday, describing plaintiffs' characterization of their actions as "desperate and disappointing." "To be sure, the parties have had pointed disagreements on discovery issues, including because defendants could not share state secrets and other protected materials that would have demonstrated their good-faith compliance with the court's orders," the administration said Tuesday. Click To Get The Fox News App "But the proof is in the pudding – defendants have returned Abrego Garcia to the United States just as they were ordered to do." Xinis, an Obama appointee, previously criticized the administration for failing to comply with her court's requests for information in the case, and accused officials in a blistering eight-page order of submitting "vague, evasive and incomplete" responses that she said demonstrated "willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations."Original article source: 'Proof is in the pudding': Trump DOJ tells court it will seek dismissal of Abrego Garcia case