Wisconsin State Bar leadership betrays the rule of law
Why has the Wisconsin State Bar take a pass on condemning unconstitutional intimidation of lawyers? And why can't anyone find out the details of how that decision was made? |Getty Images Creative
The State Bar of Wisconsin was created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the trade association that all Wisconsin lawyers must join to obtain their law licenses. Its vision statement declares its cardinal purpose: 'Our members are the respected guardians of the dignity and integrity of the rule of law within a fair and accessible justice system.'
Yet recently, State Bar leaders deliberately violated their own vision statement by refusing in any way to push back against President Donald Trump's blatantly illegal executive orders attacking lawyers, without whom the rule of law cannot exist 'within a fair and accessible justice system.' Why they shirked their express mission remains a mystery because State Bar leaders voted in secrecy on the issue and refused to explain themselves to the 25,000 State Bar members they purportedly serve. Instead, they have stonewalled membership with a bogus cone of silence over their deliberations.
Here is the context:
Earlier this Spring, President Donald Trump issued punitive executive orders targeting 14 prominent law firms because he didn't like their lawyers, clients, cases, or speech. He acted to cripple their ability to provide legal services to their clients. Trump then offered these firms an extortionate 'deal' he thought they couldn't refuse: agree to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal work to further Trump's political agenda, such as free work for the coal industry, or else lose security clearances, access to federal buildings and even government contracts held by their clients.
Several of the firms capitulated, offering roughly $1 billion in legal services to Trump that otherwise would have funded true 'pro bono' work for the underserved. Several others, including Perkins Coie, a distinguished national firm with Wisconsin members, refused. They fought back in court, and won.
Their wins are unsurprising. The U.S. Constitution undeniably bars our government from wielding its power to target lawyers based on their representation of clients, their employment decisions, or their advocating positions the administration doesn't like.
Federal courts have been unanimous and unsparing in condemning Trump's orders. One judge characterized such an order as a 'personal vendetta' by Trump that 'the framers of our Constitution would see…as a shocking abuse of power.'
Retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig commented that executive orders targeting law firms are 'the most sinister and corrupt' of the 'ocean of unconstitutional orders' coming out of the White House. He correctly emphasized that the legality of the executive orders is beside the point for Trump, who knows that no court will uphold them. The purpose, rather, is to intimidate lawyers.
Wisconsin lawyers are officers of the court, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. We are thus duty-bound to guard the Constitution against existential hazards like Trump's illegitimate orders. The rule of law requires no less.
Because the State Bar, through its governing board, is uniquely positioned to speak on issues of universal concern to all lawyers, we and others have repeatedly urged the Bar to honor its vision statement and publicly condemn Trump's orders. Various versions of a statement supporting the rule of law have been offered for the board of governors' consideration and adoption, statements that no reasonable lawyer could find objectionable while remaining true to the lawyer's oath.
We are not asking a lot. Already the State Bar—once a national leader in advancing the rule of law—is woefully behind many other respected lawyer organizations. On March 26, 2025, for example, the American Bar Association was joined by more than a hundred other lawyer organizations in a public statement specifically rejecting 'the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients…'
The ABA statement continued: 'There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession… to speak out against intimidation.'
On May 22, we were informed by a single member of the Wisconsin State Bar board of governors that the board met in closed session May 14, and 'following extensive discussion protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Board voted to make no statement concerning recent actions taken by the Executive Branch of the federal government.'
That's all we know because board members also voted to remain silent on what occurred during the closed meeting, for reasons they will also not disclose. Newly-elected members of the board of governors taking office July 1 will be barred from learning more about the May 14 closed meeting until they first take a vow of silence on what they may learn even though they are instructed by their position description to '[c]ommunicate regularly with constituents,' and to '[b]e well versed in the State Bar's public policy positions and be prepared to explain them to…members of the bar.'
We have since asked 12 representatives on the board several questions about what happened in secret and why. Only three replied, but they provided little information. We still don't know: (1) why the question was taken up in closed session, (2) why State Bar leaders needed legal counsel to advise whether the Bar should issue a statement supporting the rule of law, (3) what was discussed, (4) why no statement was issued, and (5) what was the final vote.
We asked State Bar leadership and staff to forward our questions to all 52 members of the board but, despite an agreement to do so, the questions were not sent. We still have no answers.
More than 400 years ago Shakespeare highlighted the tyrant's tactic for thwarting the rule of law: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.' Federal District Judge Beryl Howell invoked Shakespeare's warning in her scathing takedown of the executive order targeting Perkins Coie, further observing that when American history is written, 'those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded.'
The success of Trump's intimidation campaign depends largely on whether lawyers forcefully resist his illegal bullying at every opportunity. Thus, the State Bar's cowering non-response bodes ill for the rule of law in Wisconsin. As the American Bar Association stated: 'If the lawyers do not speak…who will protect the bedrock of justice?'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
29 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Europe's Exporters Feel the Chill From Trump Tariffs
Europe's exports dropped sharply in April as demand was squeezed by President Trump's tariff increases, leading to a fall in factory output that suggests economic growth has slowed after a strong start to the year. European Union exports fell by close to 10% compared with a month earlier, a dramatic reversal from the increase in March as American importers stocked up ahead of Trump's tariff announcement.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Avoid escalation': World reacts to Israel strike on Iran
World leaders urged restraint on Friday after Israel pounded Iran, striking 100 targets including nuclear and military sites, and killing senior figures, including nuclear scientists and the armed forces chief of staff. Here is a roundup of key reactions: - 'Cannot have nuclear bomb': United States - US President Donald Trump, told Fox News he was aware Israel was going to conduct strikes on Iran before it happened and said: "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see." Fox News also reported that "Trump noted the US is ready to defend itself and Israel if Iran retaliates." - 'Maximum restraint': UN - UN chief Antonio Guterres asked "both sides to show maximum restraint, avoiding at all costs a descent into deeper conflict, a situation that the region can hardly afford," according to a spokesperson. Guterres was "particularly concerned" by Israel's strikes on nuclear installations amid the ongoing US-Iran negotiations. - 'Deeply worried' : China - "The Chinese side... is deeply worried about the severe consequences that such actions might bring," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said, calling "on relevant parties to take actions that promote regional peace and stability and to avoid further escalation of tensions". - 'Reasonable reaction': Czech Republic - Czech Republic Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky said Iran "is supporting so many players, including the Hezbollah and Hamas movements, with the intention to destroy the state of Israel, and also seeking a nuclear bomb", that "I see that this was a reasonable reaction from the state of Israel towards a possible threat of a nuclear bomb". - 'Avoid any escalation' : France - "We call on all sides to exercise restraint and avoid any escalation that could undermine regional stability," France's foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on X. - 'Dangerous escalation': Hamas - "This aggression constitutes a dangerous escalation that threatens to destabilise the region," said the Iran-backed, Palestinian militant group, whose October 2023 attack on Israel sparked the Gaza war. - No 'battleground': Jordan - "Jordan has not and will not allow any violation of its airspace, reaffirming that the Kingdom will not be a battleground for any conflict," a government spokesperson told AFP after Jordan closed its airspace. - 'Dangerous approach' : Oman - Nuclear talks mediator Oman said "calls on the international community to adopt a clear and firm position to put an end to this dangerous approach, which threatens to rule out diplomatic solutions and jeopardise the security and stability of the region". - 'Strong condemnation': Qatar - Gaza mediator Qatar expressed "its strong condemnation and denunciation of the Israeli attack," the Gulf state's foreign ministry said, adding that the "dangerous escalation threatens security and stability of the region and hinders efforts to de-escalate and reach diplomatic solutions". - 'Aggressive actions': Turkey - "Israel must put an immediate end to its aggressive actions that could lead to further conflicts," Turkey's foreign ministry said in a statement. - 'Reduce tensions urgently': UK - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement: "The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region." - 'Legitimate right to defend itself': Yemen's Huthi rebels - Tehran-backed Huthi rebels said on Telegram they backed "Iran's full and legitimate right to... develop its nuclear programme" and that "we strongly condemn the brutal Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran and affirm its full and legitimate right to respond by all possible means". burs-djt/yad
