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


Fox News
38 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump tells judge he does not need Newsom's permission to crack down on rioters, deploy National Guard
The Justice Department on Wednesday doubled down on its assertion that President Donald Trump has the authority to call up U.S. National Guard troops in California, describing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's emergency lawsuit to block his action as a "crass political stunt" that risks "endangering American lives." At issue in the case is whether Trump, as commander in chief, has the authority to federalize the National Guard against the express wishes or consent of a state governor. Both sides are slated to appear in court Friday while a judge weighs California's request for injunctive relief. In the new court filing, lawyers for the administration said Trump, as president, has "no obligation" to consult with, or even to notify, Newsom before federalizing the National Guard. "The extraordinary relief plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives – and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less," lawyers for the Trump administration said in the filing. "That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema," they added. "And it would be dangerous." That argument is unlikely to sit well with Newsom. And it comes one day after California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Tuesday sued the Trump administration over what the state described as the president's unlawful action in federalizing the National Guard, which they noted was carried out without Newsom's consent. Bonta argued in the lawsuit that Trump's actions were both inappropriate and illegal, since he did not first seek Newsom's permission to federalize the troops. National Guard units fall under the dual control of state and federal governments, and any action to mobilize the units typically goes through the respective state governor first. The judge overseeing the case declined the state's request for a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's actions but ordered both parties to court Friday to consider the request for broader injunctive relief. At issue is 10 U.S.C. § 12406, or the law that Trump invoked in his memo late last week to call up the National Guard. The law allows presidents to deploy the National Guard and other troops at the federal level in the event of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. In that case, the law says the president "may call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws." But lawyers for Newsom told the court that Trump lacked the power to federalize the troops under Section 12406, since the immigration protests, in their view, did not amount to a rebellion. "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," they told the court. A group of 26 Republican state attorneys general from filed an amicus brief siding with Trump one day earlier, arguing that his decision to federalize the National Guard to address ICE riots and protests that broke out in parts of the state was the "right response." "In California, we're seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement," the attorneys general wrote in the statement, first provided to Fox News Digital. "When local and state officials won't act, the federal government must."
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
People Are Saying This Video Of Soldiers Booing When Democrats Are Mentioned "Sent A Chill Down" Their Spines
Donald Trump recently gave a speech in front of military soldiers in Fort Bragg, North Carolina — home of the largest military installation in the US — and it was deeply disturbing. In his speech, Trump called anti-ICE protestors "a vicious and violent mob," and baselessly accused Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass of paying people to cause chaos at the LA protests. He also heckled the "fake news" media, mocked Joe Biden, insulted trans people, and announced he was restoring the names of multiple military bases to feature Confederate leaders. Trump goaded active duty troops at his Fort Bragg speech to boo:The Media, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Mayor Karen Bass, and Joe Biden — The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) June 10, 2025 AP / Twitter: @BulwarkOnline Oddly enough, the most shocking aspect of Trump's speech wasn't his words, but rather, the reactions of the in-uniform soldiers. "In Los Angeles, the governor of California, the mayor of Los incompetent, and they paid troublemakers, agitators, and insurrectionists. They're engaged in this willful attempt to nullify federal law and aid the occupation of the city by criminal invaders," Trump said. The soldiers booed loudly, seemingly in agreement. "This is a record think this crowd would've showed up for Biden? I don't think so," Trump continued, smiling. Related: The Internet Is Having A Field Day Over Marjorie Taylor Greene's Tweet About Homeschooling With An Altered Map Many soldiers laughed and booed at the mention of former commander in chief Joe Biden. "Ladies and gentlemen, the fake news. Look at 'em, look at 'em I have to put up with. Fake news," Trump said pointing to reporters. In response, the soldiers loudly booed the media. Related: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It' "For a little breaking news, we are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Fort Robert E. Lee," Trump said. The news of Confederate leaders' names being returned to military bases was met with loud applause and cheers. Since their posting on X, the speech clips have ramped up millions of views, and commenters have expressed fear and anger about Trump's politicization of the military, and the soldiers' reactions. "The way this disgusting creature is politicizing the troops endlessly in this rant AND the fact they are participating in it is equally despicable. He is everything the Founding Fathers feared," one person wrote. Another X user who claims to be a veteran described the speech as "absolutely unacceptable," continuing, "we serve ALL Americans, even the ones we disagree with or dislike and we do not turn fellow citizens into enemies." "The troops booing sent a chill down my spine," this person wrote. This person called it "outrageously unpresidential" and "un-American" to "speak to the US military like they're his partisan personal army." Another veteran who spent 37 years in uniform said they'd never witnessed anything like it. "The military booing an American city, goaded by the president, is deeply unsettling." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife Also in In the News: This Senator's Clap Back Fully Gagged An MSNBC Anchor, And The Clip Is Going Viral Also in In the News: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Louisville did not delay police reform order, say mayor, chief in response to criticism
Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg talks with attendees of The Louisville Forum at Vincenzo's in downtown Louisville. June 11, 2025. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd) LOUISVILLE — Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg and Louisville Police Chief Paul Humphrey said the city should not be blamed for delaying a court order to correct civil rights abuses by Louisville police and to reform the department. During the monthly meeting of The Louisville Forum Wednesday, Humphrey pointed to federal 'bureaucracy' while Greenberg acknowledged that 'a lot of people … think that our administration and the LMPD was the reason' a consent decree mandating police reforms was not signed before the Republican Trump administration killed the agreement as expected. The mayor insisted that is not the case. Responding to an audience question, Greenberg told the gathering that it took more than 11 months for the Justice Department under Democratic President Joe Biden to get the city a draft agreement after then-Attorney General Merrick Garland came to Kentucky in 2023 to discuss the police department's civil rights violations. Greenberg said the city at that time offered to provide an initial draft of a consent decree. 'They insisted that they would provide us with the first draft. Notwithstanding our weekly requests (of) when that draft was coming, we got the first draft of the consent decree 11 and a half months later,' Greenberg said. 'So we waited basically a year to see a first draft of the consent decree after Attorney General Garland came to our city.' Trump Justice Department moves to end consent decree aimed at reforming policing in Louisville The agreement was announced in December 2024, the month before President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term. In May, the Trump administration's U.S. Department of Justice pulled back from the consent decree, saying such actions are 'handcuffing local leaders.' The consent decree came in response to the 2020 police killing of Breonna Taylor, an unarmed Black woman, and a subsequent federal investigation that exposed a pattern of constitutional violations by Louisville police. Taylor's mother criticized the mayor, Louisville Public Media reported in May, accusing him of 'dragging his feet' on the issue. Louisville Metro Council member J.P. Lyninger, a Democrat, also has voiced disappointment with Democrat Greenberg's administration. 'The findings were announced two years ago,' he told Louisville Public Media last month. 'If we had more speedily entered into agreement with the Department of Justice, this would already be on the books and we wouldn't be talking about this today.' A consent decree is a negotiated agreement that avoids a trial by spelling out requirements that a federal judge signs and enforces. On Wednesday, Greenberg said, 'Louisville Metro government was not the reason why this took time.' Instead, he said, the police department and city had 'worked day and night with getting this done as their primary focus.' Humphrey agreed, saying there are 'a lot of things that could be improved about that process' at the federal level to expedite the consent decree process. The federal government, Humphrey said, was 'more concerned with protecting the case than they were with improving the police department.' On the same day the Trump administration moved to let LMPD off the hook for reform, Greenberg and Humphrey announced the city would move forward with its own Community Commitment, a 214-page handbook with goals similar to those outlined in the proposed consent decree. 'If we were using delay as a negotiating tactic, we would not have voluntarily signed the community commitment within hours of the Department of Justice announcing they were dropping the case,' Greenberg said at the Louisville Forum. 'It would have been a very different response.' Under the Community Commitment, the city will issue a request for proposals (RFP) seeking candidates to fill the role of an independent monitor. The public will be able to weigh in on monitor candidates via an online survey and at community listening sessions. The independent monitor will cost Louisville around $750,000, Greenberg said, and will have a five-year contract. 'We have our community commitment that we're moving forward with, and so … looking back at what the federal government did or didn't do is a waste of time, in all honesty,' Humphrey said. 'Let's move forward and … make this community better.' The city has several listening sessions already scheduled where the public can weigh in on reforms. 'I encourage you to be a part of the solution,' Greenberg said. 'It's very easy to criticize, it's very easy to observe and talk to friends. We want (people) across the community to be a part of the solution.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX