US law firm Jenner asks court to permanently bar Trump executive order
April 28 (Reuters) - U.S. law firm Jenner & Block will ask a judge on Monday to permanently bar U.S. President Donald Trump 's executive order punishing the firm for its affiliation with a prosecutor who investigated ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia.
The firm will urge Republican-appointee U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington to reject the entirety of Trump's March 25 order.
The hearing, set to begin at 10:30 a.m. ET (1430 GMT), marks the latest legal clash in the Republican president's pressure campaign against prominent law firms whose lawyers or cases he opposes.
Trump's order against Chicago-founded Jenner cited its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a top federal prosecutor in U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump has described the Russia investigation as a "hoax" and "witch hunt."
The executive order sought to restrict Jenner's lawyers from accessing federal buildings and officials and to end government contracts held by its clients.
Jenner sued, calling the order a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections against government abridgment of speech and Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, a requirement for the government to use a fair legal process.
Three other firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey — have sued the administration to permanently block the executive orders he issued against them.
Judges in all four lawsuits against the administration issued temporary rulings that blocked key provisions of the White House orders.
Nine law firms, including Jenner rivals Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher and Skadden Arps, have pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services to causes the White House supports and made other concessions to avoid being targeted by Trump.
Jenner is one of more than a dozen law firms that are currently suing the Trump administration over its efforts to curb transgender rights and to freeze federal spending at many agencies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
19 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump-Iran live: Senator claims Trump 'deliberately misled public' over Iran strikes
As debate continues in the US over the effectiveness of its strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, one senator has claimed Donald Trump "deliberately misled" the public over his assertion Tehran's nuclear programme was "obliterated". Follow live and listen to Trump 100 below.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Democratic senator sounds alarm on the party's failures: ‘We don't act as a team'
A Democratic senator has sounded the alarm about her own party's failings, urging colleagues to 'slaughter some sacred cows' if they want to combat Donald Trump and win back power. Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan castigated fellow Democrats for losing their 'alpha energy' and 'bravado', being 'scared' to enforce immigration rules, taking an 'elitist' approach to the climate crisis and having 'a bias towards navel gazing'. She painted a bleak picture of a leaderless party pulling in different directions. 'Democrats are very disparate,' Slotkin told an audience at the Center for American Progress thinktank in Washington DC. 'We're like a solar system with no sun. We got a lot of planets, some with their own gravitational pull, we've got a lot of stars but there's not enough cohering us.' The senator added: 'You can't retake the town of Mosul without a plan but then also a coordination effort by all parties to specialise and do things. Everyone has a different role to play … My concern is that we don't act as a team and, when we don't work as a team, we turn our guns on each other and it's so, so, so fruitless.' Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who served three tours in Iraq, is a first-term senator widely regarded as a rising star in the party. In March, she delivered the Democrats' rebuttal to Trump's joint congressional address. The 48-year-old used her speech on Thursday to unveil an 'economic war plan', proposing that the government addresses problems such as rising costs and declining trust in institutions rather than exacerbating them. The plan focuses on five areas: creating well-paying jobs, modernising education to prepare for future economies, making housing affordable through increased construction, pursuing an 'all-of-the-above' energy strategy to lower costs, and reforming a broken healthcare system by introducing a public option and tackling drug pricing. 'As a CIA officer and Pentagon official by training, I believe that the single, greatest security threat to the United States is not coming from abroad,' she said. 'It's the shrinking middle class here at home.' When people cannot provide for their children as they themselves were provided for, she argued, it breeds 'anger and suspicion among Americans'. This frustration can be unifying for Democrats including 'moderates, progressives and everything in between'. Slotkin argued that government failed to uphold its 'Great American Deal' by not ruthlessly expanding the middle class, instead being swayed by special interests and political expediency. She proposed rebuilding systems around jobs, education, housing, energy and healthcare rather than simply 'nibbling at the margins'. She also advocated for political reforms, such as banning corporate political action committee donations and congressional stock trading, to regain public trust and refocus politicians on the needs of the middle class. The senator urged Democrats to take a pragmatic approach willing to 'slaughter some sacred cows' to achieve results. She called on her colleagues to distinguish between small businesses and multinational corporations and avoid 'vilifying success'. Slotkin, who hails from a border state, said there must be acknowledgment that the immigration system is broken. 'Both parties have been a mess on this issue. Republicans say border security should substitute for an immigration policy and are rounding up people in a way that goes against American values. 'Democrats are scared to impose real rules. So let me slaughter another sacred cow. We need to move past the talking point on comprehensive immigration reform … We need big, bold change to fix a broken system but at this point that can be one bill or spread across five bills. I will work with any adults I can find who are actually interested in making some kind of progress on immigration.' On education, Slotkin called for mobile phones to be banned from every K-12 classroom in the US and advocated for investment in certification programmes, community colleges, trade schools and apprenticeships as well as a radical overhaul of federal workforce training programmes. 'Killing another sacred cow: in America you don't have to go to college to be successful … Making a living using your hands is a worthy path. Some Democrats give that lip service but it's time to put our money where our mouth is.' She called for an 'all-of-the-above energy plan', including natural gas, nuclear, batteries, renewables, and new technologies, rejecting the 'elitist' climate change approaches of some fellow Democrats that create 'purity tests'. Slotkin represents swing state Michigan, which Democrat Kamala Harris narrowly lot to Trump in last year's presidential election. She was speaking two days after progressive candidate Zohran Mamdani stunned the Democratic establishment by beating moderate Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayoral primary. Asked for her reaction, Slotkin replied: 'The message that came across loud and clear to me was number one, people just like in November are still really focused on costs and the economy and their own kitchen table math. And they're looking for a new generation of leadership. Those were to me the two big takeaways. 'That's why, again, it reinforces for me we may disagree on some key issues but understanding that people are concerned about their family budget – that is a unifying thing for our coalition. The message, at least for me, was clear.' She rejected the common observation that Trump supporters were voting against their own interests. 'Their interest was in believing that someone was going to do something different and, while I don't believe Donald Trump for one second on what he's been selling, he at least was offering something different, and we need to hear that.'
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Delaying welfare reform is better than bad welfare reform, prime minister
One of the more unexpected aspects of the prime minister's performance in recent months is that he seems to find much more success in negotiating with the likes of tricky characters such as Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron than he does with his own backbenchers. Many of them, he must reflect, owe their seats in the House of Commons to his Herculean efforts to make the Labour Party electable again after the debacle in 2019. There was nothing preordained about the landslide last July, even if the Conservatives did all they could, inadvertently, to ease Labour back into power after a 14-year wait. That so many Labour MPs now seem to yearn for the kind of policies Jeremy Corbyn fought and lost on can only be a cause for dismay for Sir Keir Starmer and his closest advisers. In its century and a quarter existence, Sir Keir is only the third leader of his party to have ever won an overall majority. Attlee, Wilson, Blair, Starmer; this is an instructively small club. Politics is indeed an ungrateful business. At this juncture, the prime minister might be well advised to reach for Occam's razor, whereby the simplest explanation is often the best. The range of political options, policy adjustments and permutations of possible parliamentary outcomes as the vote on the welfare bill approaches is dizzyingly complex. The chances of success are vanishingly thin. There is simply insufficient time to recast the reforms in such a way that would preserve the best intentions of policy, deliver the savings needed by the Treasury, and secure the support of an increasingly febrile parliamentary party. The good news for Sir Keir and his colleagues is that, when treated as an objective policy challenge, the path ahead is more straightforward. The obvious mistake made by ministers since they took office is that reform of social security also became an exercise in 'tough', performative politics, and a crude if not panicky way for the Treasury to cut public spending. The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was rushed to meet unrealistic fiscal deadlines set by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves (as with some of her other policies), and, for want of a better word, botched. With such a hurried timetable for such a sensitive set of changes affecting vulnerable people, it is little wonder that Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, was unable to win the arguments. A pause is essential, and inevitable. What is to be done? Just as the 'reasoned amendment' put forward by more than 120 Labour MPs suggests, the first thing the government must do is complete the essential work that should have been done before bringing the bill to parliament. That means the consultations with groups representing people with disabilities must be properly completed and taken into account. We already know that, on the government's own estimations, some 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty, and that seems very much at odds with the declared intentions of the changes – to improve the living standards of people with disabilities by getting them into the good jobs so many of them want. Will the reforms do that? We do not know. MPs, and the public, are waiting for the Office for Budget Responsibility to publish its impact assessment on the employment prospects of those affected, with the improved job-finding support and the 'right to try' safeguards in place, alongside the alterations in the criteria for personal independence payments (PIP). If, as the Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden attests, more than 1,000 people a day go on to PIP, why is that so high? Why have economic inactivity rates not recovered to pre-Covid levels? Conjecture, surmise and speculation are a poor basis for policy. This might also therefore be a moment for an overhaul of the points-based system for assessing people's needs. The mathematical nature of such tests feels insensitive and deeply impersonal, and may take insufficient account of individual circumstances. There should be a better, more dignified, more holistic way of working out need than 'scoring' a person according, for example, on whether they can wash their whole body themselves (zero points), need 'supervision' (two points), assistance for lower body (two points), upper body (four points) or whole body (eight points). There should also be an objective review of how far mental health is being 'over-diagnosed' and affecting the numbers claiming benefits. Some, such as Nigel Farage and the health secretary, Wes Streeting, opine that that is the case – but there seems inadequate data to draw a firm conclusion. It would also help the credibility of the reforms if the government had organised time-limited but full pilot schemes under the new arrangements in one or two regions of the country. Under the DWP's Pathways to Work programme, there have been such trials and work coaches and specialist one-to-one help have proved successful – but there's no evidence or research to back the argument that the proposed reforms to benefit eligibility will indeed produce better outcomes. That is why the Labour MPs are left unpersuaded. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Backbench MPs are not AI-driven automatons whose only role is to unconditionally back the party leadership. When they are asked to do so, an appeal to loyalty and the horrors of the opposition ('Prime Minister Farage') are perfectly legitimate. But members of parliament are also entitled to have evidence-based, well-developed policy before they are asked to approve it. The public is also right to expect that, and parliament has an obligation to respect the needs and vulnerabilities of those subjected to fairly sudden changes in their personal finances – in this case, people with extremely varied disabilities. If there is to be a Commons vote on welfare reform next week, then the bill would need to be gutted, taking out the contentious, under-researched provisions on eligibility, and leaving only the useful and proven new schemes that are likely to help people into work, where it is available. It's a rare opportunity to get social security reform right – and for it to command the wide public support needed as spending on an ageing population increases the cost. Delaying welfare reform is better than bad welfare reform.
