Judge strikes down Trump executive order targeting law firm, extending his losing streak
As last week came to an end, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush blocked one of Donald Trump's executive orders targeting a law firm. As this week gets underway, as Reuters reported, a different federal judge appointed by the same Republican president went even further.
A judge in Washington on Tuesday struck down an executive order targeting law firm WilmerHale, marking the third ruling to overwhelmingly reject President Donald Trump's efforts to punish firms he perceives as enemies of his administration. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, said Trump's order retaliated against the firm in violation of U.S. constitutional protections for free speech and due process.
'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting,' Judge Richard Leon wrote. 'The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence.
'I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional.'
Stepping back, only a handful of law firms fought back against the White House — most of the president's targets tried to appease the president — but those that have resisted are on quite a winning streak.
One of the first firms to be targeted, Perkins Coie, filed suit against Trump rather than giving in, and soon after, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell temporarily blocked the president's policy, saying in reference to the executive order, 'It sends little chills down my spine.' The judge added, 'I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through.'
It was the first in a series of related setbacks for the White House. Around the same time, Jenner & Block was targeted; it also sought a temporary order blocking Trump's attack, and it also succeeded. Susman Godfrey scored a similar victory, and now WilmerHale has persuaded a judge that Trump's EO deserved to be rejected entirely.
In other words, four of the targeted firms fought back rather than give in, and all four have — at least for now — prevailed, stopping Trump's gambit in its tracks.
As for the firms that chose appeasement, it's hard not to wonder how many regret their decisions. I'm not privy to their internal deliberations, of course, but many likely made a cost-benefit analysis: Concerned about losing lucrative clients, they probably decided it'd be cheaper simply to give in.
So they entered into negotiations with the White House — or, more accurately, Trump's highly controversial and recently indicted personal attorney, who's reportedly helping take the lead on these deals — and committed to nearly $1 billion in free legal services to make the president happy.
Given the available evidence, fighting back didn't just help some of Trump's targets preserve their reputations, it also seems vastly cheaper.
It also likely would've saved some of these firms considerable and avoidable conflicts. The New York Times reported last week that four of the top partners at Paul Weiss — one of the legal giants that gave in to the White House — announced that they are leaving to create their own law firm.
This came on the heels of a Wall Street Journal report that said another firm in the same position, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, is finding that its deal with Trump 'is backfiring,' with the agreement 'pushing more lawyers to leave, people familiar with the matter said, spurred by anger that the firm capitulated to Trump instead of fighting back against an administration campaign that many in the industry believe to be unconstitutional.'
Of course, for firms that didn't choose to placate the president, it's worth noting that it's not too late for them to reverse course, end their deals with Trump and join with the firms that keep winning in court.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
14 minutes ago
Judge blocks private prison operator from housing ICE detainees at shuttered Kansas center
LEAVENWORTH, Kan. -- A judge on Wednesday barred a major U.S. private prison operator from housing immigrants facing possible deportation in a shuttered Kansas City area detention center unless it can get a permit from frustrated city officials. Leavenworth County Judge John Bryant agreed after a packed hearing to grant the city of Leavenworth's request for a temporary restraining order against CoreCivic, one of the nation's largest private prison operators. CoreCivic had claimed in legal filings that halting the opening of the 1,033-bed facility on the northwest outskirts of the Kansas City area would cost it $4.2 million in revenue each month. City officials said they anticipated the arrival of detainees apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was imminent under a Trump administration crackdown on illegal immigration. Leavenworth isn't the first city where controversy has surrounded the reopening of a private prison as an ICE detention facility. In Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Ras Baraka sued the state's top federal prosecutor on Tuesday over his recent arrest on a trespassing charge at a federal immigration detention facility in that state, saying the Trump-appointed attorney had pursued the case out of political spite. Scott Peterson, the city manager for Leavenworth, said he didn't know if the case in Kansas marked the first time a municipality had prevailed in court. 'I would point out that maybe the reason we have seen some success here today is this is not about immigration,' Peterson said. 'This is not about private prisons. This is about land use.' In late 2021, CoreCivic stopped housing pretrial detainees for the U.S. Marshals Service in the Leavenworth facility after then-President Joe Biden called on the Justice Department to curb the use of private prisons. In the months leading up to the closure, the American Civil Liberties Union and federal public defenders urged the White House to speed up the closure, citing inmate rights violations there along with stabbings, suicides and even one homicide. But with President Donald Trump pushing for mass deportations under a wide-ranging crackdown on illegal immigration, the facility that CoreCivic now calls the Midwest Regional Reception Center is in demand again. It is located just 10 miles (16 kilometers) west of the Kansas City International Airport. As part of his crackdown, Trump has vowed to sharply increase detention beds nationwide from the budgeted 41,000 beds this year. Tennessee-based CoreCivic initially applied for a special use permit from the city in February but then withdrew that application the next month, arguing in court filings that it didn't need the permit and that the process would take too long. 'It became clear to CoreCivic that there was not a cooperative relationship,' said Taylor Concannon Hausmann, an attorney for the private prison operator, speaking in court. The city sued CoreCivic, the lawsuit claiming that CoreCivic impeded the city police force's ability to investigate sexual assaults and other violent crimes. The lawsuit contended that the permitting process was needed to safeguard itself from future problems. 'Just follow our rules," an attorney for the city, Joe Hatley, said in court. 'Go get a permit.' The first version of the lawsuit, filed in March in federal court, was tossed out in May on technical grounds. But Bryant sided with Hatley in the case refiled the same month in state court, finding that the proper procedures weren't followed. Concannon Hausmann, CoreCivic's attorney, declined to comment as the crowd filtered out of the courtroom Wednesday. Norman Mallicoat held a sign reading, 'CoreCivic Doesn't Run Leavenworth' as he left. 'I see this as basically a large company trying to bully a small city into getting what it wants and not having to follow the rules and ordinances of the city,' Mallicoat said.
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
Senate weighs Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' as policy group backs CBO, projects $3 trillion debt increase
President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" is projected to increase the debt by $3 trillion, with interest, or $5 trillion if made permanent, according to estimates. An estimate of the House-passed bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects it would add more than $2.4 trillion to primary deficits before interest over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonprofit public policy organization. As of Wednesday, the national debt, which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors, was $36.2 trillion, and the national deficit, which occurs when the federal government's spending exceeds its revenues, was $1 trillion, according to the Treasury Department. The massive spending package being considered by a Republican-controlled Congress aims to address a number of issues, including tax policy, border security and immigration, defense, energy production, the debt limit, and adjustments to SNAP and Medicaid. "Based on CBO's estimate, the House-passed bill includes roughly $5.3 trillion of tax cuts and spending partially offset by $2.9 trillion of revenue increases and spending cuts," a CRFB statement said. "Most significantly, the policies put forward by the Ways & Means Committee would increase deficits by $3.8 trillion, on net, while the policies in the Energy & Commerce title would reduce deficits by $1.1 trillion. With interest, the bill would add nearly $3.0 trillion to the debt through 2034 – or $5.0 trillion if various temporary provisions are made permanent." "OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act) would add far too much to the debt as written and could lead to far more fiscal damage than reported if temporary provisions are extended as intended," the group said. It noted that the bill would boost near-term inflation, increase interest rates, add unnecessary complexity to the tax code as well as weaken market confidence and slow long-term economic growth. It urged the Senate to make the bill "more responsible." Despite the bill passing in the House, some lawmakers have voiced opposition to the legislation, most notably Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. "We have never raised the debt ceiling without actually meeting that target," Paul told reporters this week. "So you can say it doesn't directly add to the debt, but if you increase the ceiling $5 trillion, you'll meet that. And what it does is it puts it off the back burner. And then we won't discuss it for a year or two." Top Democrats recently said the bill would cause the deaths of an estimated 51,000 Americans due to changes to the federal healthcare system and the broader reconciliation legislation. Also against the bill is Elon Musk, Trump's former head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House.
Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Bipartisan deals on voting and election changes are rare. It just happened in one swing state
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Facing a legislature dominated by Democrats, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo stood before Nevada lawmakers earlier this year with a message that some did not expect to go far: 'Set aside partisan politics.' It was a plea that might have seemed more aspirational than realistic, given the country's deep polarization. Yet it set the stage for one of the session's most unexpected outcomes — a bipartisan agreement to bring voter ID requirements to the perennial battleground state by next year's midterm elections. In a deal that came together in the waning days of the session, the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a bill that combined a requirement for voter ID — a conservative priorityacross the country and something that has been on Lombardo's legislative wish list — with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mailed ballots in the state's most populous counties. Lombardo is expected to sign the bill. The compromise represents a form of bipartisan dealmaking that has been especially scarce in recent years as the country's political divisions have deepened, especially around any potential reform to voting and election laws. President Donald Trump's lies about his loss in the 2020 presidential election fueled a wave of restrictive voting laws in Republican-led states that Democrats countered with changes to make voting more accessible, while an executive order Trump signed earlier this year seeking to overhaul how elections are run was met with a wave of Democratic lawsuits. Election legislation has mostly hit a dead end in states where the parties share power, making Nevada's bill all the more remarkable. A requirement for voters to show photo identification at the polls has long been a nonstarter for Nevada Democrats, who have argued that it threatened to disenfranchise low-income voters and make it more difficult for people to vote, especially older voters, those with disabilities and those without driver's licenses. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo after the governor vetoed his original bill to expand drop box access, acknowledged it was a tough concession. But he said it was the best they could do with the time they had left. 'Now I understand and appreciate that this will be a particularly challenging bill for some to support, but I also believe we have a duty to move forward,' he said over the weekend when releasing details of the deal publicly for the first time. It's a stark contrast to the 2023 legislative session, the last time lawmakers met. Lombardo outlined voter ID as one of his main priorities, but Democrats in the statehouse refused to give the proposal a hearing. The governor vowed he would take the issue directly to voters. Last November, Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved the voter ID ballot initiative that Lombardo supported. Voters will have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution, and the requirement would then be in place for the 2028 presidential election. Yeager told his colleagues over the weekend that voters seemed poised to give their final approval to the measure. He argued that passing a voter ID law now would give the state a two-year head start on implementing the requirements, to get ready before the next presidential contest. Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, said he respects the will of the voters and will work with the governor and local election officials 'to continue strengthening our elections.' That includes, under the proposal, a new — and free — digital form of voter ID that his office will be in charge of rolling out. Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans supported requiring all voters to provide photo ID at their voting place to cast a ballot, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. 'This may not be my favorite policy to have to implement, but I think as a Legislature we have a responsibility to do this,' Yeager told his colleagues. State Sen. Carrie Ann Buck, a Republican, praised the effort, saying, 'I think this is very thoughtful and very courageous of you to bring this in a bipartisan way ... I think our common goals are that every legitimate voter gets to vote.' But not all Democrats were on board, with five voting against it when it passed the Senate. 'I recognize what you're attempting to do, to stave off something worse,' said Democratic Sen. Dina Neal. But she said she was 'wrestling with the philosophical issue with voter ID.' 'I'm not in the space where I am openly willing to disenfranchise a population who may not even understand this law as written.' If Lombardo signs the bill, Nevada will join 36 other states that either require or request voters show ID when voting in person, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Under Nevada's bill, voters will be required to show a form of photo ID when voting in person, which will include government-issued IDs and Nevada-issued university student IDs. 'Nevada has some of the most secure and accessible elections in the country,' Yeager said, 'and this bill is a set of compromises between the Legislature and the governor that I believe can ensure that tradition continues.' ___ Associated Press writers Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta and Linley Sanders in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
