Law firms targeted by Trump are on a winning streak against him
Federal courts have handed a series of resounding victories to the law firms fighting back against President Trump's targeted executive orders, a sharp rebuke of his retribution campaign against them.
Three judges, appointed by presidents of both political parties, forcefully struck down orders this month aimed at limiting government contracts and access for Big Law firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block.
The early wins underscore the legal system's ability to withstand the Trump administration's pressure test, and have led some in the legal community to take shots at other elite firms that struck deals with Trump to avoid punishments.
'This is a moment for courage, not capitulation,' said Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor who authored papers calling Trump's orders retaliatory and the law firm deals unenforceable.
'The firms that showed courage are being vindicated, and the ones who have capitulated have another chance to show courage,' he continued. 'So, what are they going to do?'
The judges ruling in favor of the law firms all deemed the administration's actions as illegal.
Still, that might not make firms that chose to strike deals with Trump regret their actions.
Those firms likely anticipated they could win in court, but decided it was in their better business interests to settle with Trump, said Rachel Cohen, a lawyer who made waves after she offered a conditional resignation from Skadden contingent on whether leadership came up with 'a satisfactory response to the current moment.'
Skadden ended up reaching a deal with the Trump administration, and Cohen no longer works there.
Cohen argued Trump has effectively won in getting a number of law firms to offer it concessions even though the administration had a weak case in court.
'The very fact that we're saying, 'What does it mean that the Trump administration has lost all of these legal battles' shows that they kind of won, right?' Cohen told The Hill.
The three firms that won in court all have ties to people who are political opponents of Trump or who are otherwise seen as the president as enemies.
Perkins Coie had long drawn Trump's ire for advising Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign and working with an opposition research firm tied to the discredited Steele dossier.
WilmerHale had employed special counsel Robert Mueller before and after his stint investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, while Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prominent Trump critic and legal pundit who worked on Mueller's probe.
A fourth firm fighting back, Susman Godfrey, is awaiting a ruling on a Trump executive order targeting it for punishment. The firm helped Dominion Voting Systems secure a multimillion-dollar settlement against Fox News after the 2020 election.
The Trump administration has argued that it's within the president's discretion to decide who to trust with the nation's secrets, a reference to its decision to revoke the security clearances of the firms' employees. The orders were designed to assuage Trump's concerns about the law firms, the government has said.
But judges haven't bought it.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said Tuesday in his ruling for WilmerHale that the president's orders against several of the nation's top law firms constituted a direct challenge to the independent judiciary and bar that are the 'cornerstone' of America's justice system.
To let the orders stand would be 'unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers,' the judge wrote in a 73-page opinion spattered with exclamation points.
Before that, U.S. District Judge John Bates, another Bush appointee, slammed Trump's order against Jenner & Block as an effort to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like,' while U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Obama, said Trump's order against Perkins Coie 'draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.''
Trump's deal with Paul, Weiss was an earthquake in the legal world, and signaled that a number of powerful firms would be willing to do deals with Trump out of economic prudence.
Trump revoked the executive order targeting Paul, Weiss after it agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to support administration initiatives and other perks.
'As soon as Paul, Weiss made their deal, it was very clear to me that the industry wasn't going to act collectively and that they were going to splinter,' Cohen said.
Soon after, Skadden struck its own deal with the president, agreeing to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services 'during the Trump administration and beyond.' Trump had not signed an order aimed at Skadden, though the administration signaled that additional law firms could come under fire.
At least seven other firms entered agreements with Trump to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work, despite no executive orders issued against them.
'There is a different motivation beyond 'Would I be able to win in court?' that is behind why these deals were entered into in the first place,' said Cohen.
But Koh, the law professor, argued that it's not too late for the other firms to change course.
In his essay in the law and policy journal Just Security, he contended that the agreements are unenforceable contracts.
He offered a hypothetical: If you enter a contract to give someone a million dollars because they put a gun to your head, but then a court says it was illegal to put a gun to your head, would you still pay the million dollars?
'Right now, they are prisoners of handcuffs of their own making,' Koh said of the law firms. 'It's all in their mind — that's what these cases tell you.
'Whatever was their explanation for why they caved the first time, those justifications are gone,' he continued. 'They should start doing the right thing now; they have a second chance to do the right thing, and they should take it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Budget Axes Program That Keeps Poor People From Freezing To Death At Home
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump wants to make some pretty devastating cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services in his new 2026 budget request. But one of the cruelest is a line buried in HHS' Budget in Brief: 'The budget eliminates funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.' The federal block grant program, often referred to as LIHEAP, has been around for decades and helps millions of people in low-income households pay their energy bills. Critically, it helps seniors, families with children, and people with disabilities keep their heat on in the dead of winter and cool air blowing in the sweltering days of summer. More than 6 million households currently rely on LIHEAP for help with energy bills. The Trump administration appears to justify gutting LIHEAP by tying it to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in government, all of which Trump wants to eradicate. 'Savings come from eliminating radical diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory programs, which weaponized large swaths of the Federal Government against the American people and moving programs that are better suited for States and localities to provide,' reads the HHS budget brief, just before it calls for zeroing out LIHEAP funding. To be sure, the president's budget request isn't going to become law. It has to make its way through Congress, where lawmakers will make all kinds of changes to it. But it's going to fall on Republicans to fight to preserve LIHEAP. The Trump administration has already crippled the low-income energy program. On April 1, HHS announced it was putting 10,000 federal employees on administrative leave through June 2, at which they would be terminated. This included the entire staff running LIHEAP. Twenty state attorneys general intervened in May and sued HHS, claiming the mass firings were illegal and calling for everyone's jobs to be restored. The lawsuit is still underway. State administrators that provide LIHEAP assistance still have federal money to keep operating this year, but without federal staff, the program's future looks grim. Trump zeroing out its entire budget certainly feels like its death knell. While Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly beholden to Trump, they don't have strong margins in either chamber. If even a handful of GOPers push back on a provision in a bill, their opposition could tank the whole thing. LIHEAP could draw such pushback. House and Senate Republicans have called on HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore the program's staff and vouched for its need. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of the most politically vulnerable in his party, told Kennedy in April the program is 'vital' to his community. 'The program supports our most vulnerable populations, including seniors, individuals with disabilities, and households with young children under the age of six,' Lawler wrote to Kennedy. 'In FY 2023, 24% of New Yorkers reported being unable to pay their energy bill at least once in a 12-month period. During FY 2023, LIHEAP also helped prevent over 100,000 utility disconnections in New York alone, highlighting this program's critical need.' Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) led a bipartisan letter to Kennedy in April urging him to reverse course on LIHEAP staff cuts. 'We write regarding reports that you have terminated staff responsible for administering the LowIncome Home Energy Program,' reads their letter, signed by 13 senators. 'If true, these terminations threaten to devastate a critical program dedicated to helping Americans afford their home energy bills. 'It is an indispensable lifeline, helping to ensure that recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and affording other necessities like food and medicine,' said the senators. Separately, Murkowski directly told the HHS secretary in May how crucial LIHEAP assistance is for people in her state. 'For us it's not a budget line item,' she told Kennedy as he testified before a Senate committee. 'You've been to Alaska. You know that the temperatures there can get really, really tough. [LIHEAP] keeps people from freezing to death in their homes.' The fate of LIHEAP will almost certainly come up this week on Capitol Hill, with both the House and Senate back in session and Trump's budget request now awaiting their action. Aides to Murkowski, Collins and Lawler did not immediately respond to requests for comment relating to Trump's budget request zeroing out LIHEAP funding.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Putin didn't budge in Ukraine peace talks. Now Donald Trump may be forced to act
So, Russia and Ukraine are still as far apart as ever, with the two warring countries unable to make a significant breakthrough in direct talks in Istanbul. While there was agreement to exchange more prisoners, Moscow and Kyiv remain deeply divided over how to bring the costly and bitter Ukraine war to an end. Russia has shown itself to be particularly uncompromising, handing Ukrainian negotiators a memorandum re-stating its maximalist, hardline terms which would essentially amount to a Ukrainian surrender. Expectations were always low for a Kremlin compromise. But Moscow appears to have eliminated any hint of a readiness to soften its demands. The Russian memorandum again calls on Ukraine to withdraw from four partially occupied regions that Russia has annexed but not captured: a territorial concession that Kyiv has repeatedly rejected. It says Ukraine must accept strict limits on its armed forces, never join a military alliance, host foreign troops or aquire nuclear weapons. It would be Ukrainian demilitarization in its most hardline form, unpalatable to Ukraine and much of Europe, which sees the country as a barrier against further Russian expansion. Other Russian demands include the restoration of full diplomatic and economic ties, specifically that no reparations will be demanded by either side and that all Western sanctions on Russia be lifted. It is a Kremlin wish-list that, while familiar, speaks volumes about how Moscow continues to imagine the future of Ukraine as a subjugated state in the thrall of Russia, with no significant military of its own nor real independence. This uncompromising position comes despite two important factors which may have given the Kremlin pause. Firstly, Ukraine has developed the technical capability to strike deep inside Russia, despite its staggering disparity of territory and resources. The stunning drone strikes recently targeting Russian strategic bombers at bases thousands of miles from Ukraine is a powerful illustration of that. Ukraine, it seems, has some cards after all, and is using them effectively. Secondly – and arguably more dangerously for Moscow – the Kremlin's latest hardline demands come despite US President Donald Trump's increasing frustrations with his own Ukraine peace efforts. Trump has already expressed annoyance with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who he said had gone 'absolutely MAD' after massive Russian strikes on Ukraine last week. But now, Trump himself is under pressure as a cornerstone of his second term foreign policy – bringing a rapid end the Ukraine war – looks decidedly shaky. There are powerful levers to pull if Trump chooses, like increasing US military aid or imposing tough new sanctions, such as those overwhelmingly supported in the US Senate. One of the key backers of a cross-party senate bill that aims to impose 'crippling' new measures on Moscow, Senator Richard Blumenthal, accused Russia of 'mocking peace efforts' at the Istanbul talks and in a carefully worded post on X accused the Kremlin of 'playing Trump and America for fools.' It is unclear at the moment how the mercurial US president will react, or what – if anything – he will do. But the outcome of the Ukraine war, specifically the brokering of peace deal to end it, has become inextricably linked with the current administration in the White House. The fact that Putin has once again dug in his heels and presented an uncompromising response to calls for peace, may now force Trump to act.
