US judge overturns Trump order targeting major law firm Jenner & Block
Trump's executive order, called Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block, suspended security clearances for the firm's lawyers and restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work.
Trump accused the law firm of engaging in activities that 'undermine justice and the interests of the United States', claiming that it participated in politically driven legal actions. In the executive order, Trump specifically criticized the firm for hiring Andrew Weissmann, an attorney who worked on Robert Mueller's investigation into allegations of Russian influence in Trump's 2016 campaign.
The firm sued to block Trump's order, arguing it violated the constitution's first and fifth amendments.
US district judge John D Bates ruled on Friday that Trump's directive violated core rights under the US constitution, mirroring a 2 May ruling that struck down a similar executive order against law firm Perkins Coie.
Bates did not mince words when calling a Trump executive order unconstitutional, which sought to target Jenner & Block.
Trump's order, Bates wrote, 'makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed'.
'Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the constitution,' Bates said.
The justice department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The administration can appeal Bates' order to the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.
Trump signed an executive order in March, targeting Jenner & Block by suspending security clearances and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. This was, Trump claimed, because of politically motivated 'lawfare' the firm engaged in.
By attempting to push forward this executive order, Trump attempted to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the executive branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers'.
Bates added that the Trump executive orders against law firms 'follow the same recipe: other than personalized touches in their first sections, they generally direct the same adverse actions towards each firm and decry the threat each firm poses to national security and the national interest'.
Bates was appointed to the District of Columbia in 2001 by George W Bush. He blocked Trump's executive order completely.
Apart from Jenner and Perkins Coie, two other firms – WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey – have sued the Trump administration to permanently block executive orders he issued against them.
Nine law firms, including Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher and Skadden Arps, have pledged nearly $1bn in free legal services to causes the White House supports and made other concessions to avoid being targeted by Trump.
The justice department has defended Trump's executive orders against Jenner and other law firms as consistent with the broad reach of presidential authority.
Reuters contributed reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Trump administration's lawsuit against all of Maryland's federal judges meets skepticism in court
A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland's entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals. U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn't issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration's extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented. Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland's 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration's aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies. At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed. The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Donald Trump's authority to enforce immigration laws. But attorneys for the judges argue the lawsuit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda. 'The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,' attorney Paul Clement said during Wednesday's hearing. 'There really is no precursor for this suit' Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case. Cullen also asked the government's attorneys whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court. 'I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,' Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration's case. Hedges denied that the case would 'open the floodgates' to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement. 'The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,' she said. Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government's request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge's order. The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government 'fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,' according to the order. Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that 'resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.' Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government. The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that 'a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.' Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump's immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured. The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he's released from jail pending trial.
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Dana White makes big vow over UFC fighter pay after Paramount deal
Dana White has vowed that UFC fighter pay will go up in the wake of the new broadcast deal with Paramount + set to transform the sport and said to be worth more than $7bn. Earlier this week came the stunning announcement that the UFC will have a new broadcaster from 2026, having signed with Paramount+ in a seven-year deal with an average annual value of $1.1bn, after its current contract with ESPN comes to an end. In a significant break from the pay-per-view model that has helped the promotion become one of the most valuable and popular sports entities in the world, the UFC is embracing streaming and fans will pay a monthly subscription for content rather than increasingly costly one-off purchases for PPVs. After the announcement was made on Monday (11 August), a lot of the fallout focused on increased exposure for fighters and how the move would impact the sport as a whole but UFC president White was quiet on what it might mean for fighters' finances. However, he has now broken cover and, in a press conference following Week 1 of the latest Dana White's Contender Series, revealed a massive pay change that should excite his fighters. 'The low-hanging fruit that's easy to answer? Bonuses are obviously going up,' White explained. 'That'll be big, and forget about the tide rising with all the other fighters, just the number that the bonuses bring to a fighter, it's millions of dollars.' The UFC has been known to issue $50,000 post-fight performance bonuses to select fighters who put on standout showings in the Octagon and White's words suggest there could be an increase in these sorts of payments. 'This is going to be incredible for the fighters. We've talked about how this is good for the fans and good for the sport, but the fighters are also big beneficiaries here,' White went on to explain to Front Office Sports. 'We've looked to increase fighter pay whenever we could, even back in the beginning when we were losing money, and certainly will be doing so again.' At the moment, UFC fighters are generally paid on show-and-win contracts (e.g. $15,000 to fight, another $15,000 if they win), at least until they start climbing the ranks and managing to negotiate a bit more. That pay increases over time but another factor is PPV points; if points are in their contract, athletes can earn more money if they are on the main card of a PPV and that event achieves a certain number of buys. The fact PPVs will no longer exist once the Paramount deal kicks in suggests there will need to be other ways to reward fighters for competing at big events. The UFC signed with ESPN in 2018 and began a partnership in 2019, but their contract expires this year. It was thought by some that the promotion could end up on Netflix, given the streaming platform is the main global broadcaster of WWE – the professional wrestling behemoth that is essentially the UFC's sister company under ownership group TKO – and ironically, WWE just signed a broadcast deal for ESPN to show certain events going forward. Instead, the UFC is embracing streaming, although Monday's announcement stated that CBS, a cable network in the US, will show certain fights. The statement also said that 2026 is set to feature 13 numbered events (previously pay-per-view events, for example UFC 317, 318, 319) and 30 Fight Night events. TNT Sports is currently the UFC's UK broadcaster and is available through discovery+, and it is understood that the Paramount deal will not affect UK viewers. 'The historic deal for Paramount and CBS fans is incredible for UFC fans and our athletes,' White explained at the time. 'For the first time ever, fans in the US will have access to all UFC content without a pay-per-view model, making it more affordable and accessible to view the greatest fights on a massive platform. 'This deal puts UFC amongst the biggest sports in the world. The exposure provided by the Paramount and CBS networks under this new structure is a huge win for our athletes and anyone who watches and loves this sport.'
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Nissan is recalling 13K Frontiers
Published: | Updated: A tough-looking truck has been unintentionally winking at pedestrians. Nissan is recalling 13,719 Frontiers, its midsize pickup, because of faulty headlights. A software error in the 2025 model accidentally dims the two front lights. Federal regulations require new vehicles to run the lamps, even during the daytime. The automaker told Daily Mail that the lights accidentally lower when the automatic start-stop feature takes over at a red light or in traffic. Nissan warns that the flickering headlights 'may cause confusion to other vehicles or pedestrians, increasing the risk of a crash.' Customers must bring their vehicle back to the dealership for a free computer update. Impacted owners will receive a mailed notice in mid-September. Nissan confirmed the recall in a statement to the Daily Mail, saying some owners experienced a 'brief change in headlight intensity.' Nissan's Frontier sales have lagged this year, with the company reporting a 23 percent decline compared to last year . The truck is not alone: Nissan has been cash-strapped since November, with executives worrying if the brand will be able to stay alive. Earlier this year, Nissan held talks with Honda on a potential merger , but negotiations didn't end in a deal. Moody's, a powerful credit agency, downgraded Nissan's debt to 'junk' status , signalling to investors that lending money to Nissan is now considered a very risky bet. Makoto Uchida, the company's CEO at the time, stepped down after the failed talks. Ivan Espinosa was named the replacement. Recall fall So far, Nissan has issued six recalls in 2025. The largest bulletin reached the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in June - impacting 443,899 cars, including the company's best-selling Rogue SUV and Altima sedan. At the time, Nissan discovered metal debris in a section of the engine that allowed 'hot oil to be discharged' and increased the likelihood of a fire. To remedy the problem, Nissan said it would completely replace the engine on impacted cars. It's been a tough year for vehicle recalls: so far, the top 13 major automakers have issued 228 recalls. And Ford has led the pack . By a lot. By early August, the iconic automaker has already issued 96 safety bulletins since January, the most any car company has ever issued in an entire year. But there is a dramatic twist in how car companies are fixing vehicles: many are turning to over-the-air computer updates for patches. Instead of frustrating customers with backlogged parts and trips to the dealerships, the biggest US automakers, including Ford, have updated vehicle computers while cars are parked via data clouds. The Detroit automaker previously told the Daily Mail that nearly half of its recalls were fixed with computer updates.
