Latest news with #HenryVI
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judges on Trump's war on Big Law: 5 explosive quotes from recent orders
Trump is on a losing streak in court against law firms challenging his executive orders. Judges cite constitutional violations and lack of national security justification. The Paul Weiss deal has repeatedly come up in rulings striking down executive orders. President Donald Trump's recent string of court losses in his war on Big Law has resulted in sweeping smackdowns from federal judges. The judges, all sitting in the US District Court for Washington, DC, ruled against the Trump administration and blocked executive orders targeting WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. A decision is still pending in a fourth lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey over an order targeting the firm. Nine other law firms have struck deals with Trump, promising a collective near-$1 billion in pro bono work toward his political priorities while averting a punitive executive order. But the deal struck with Paul Weiss — the first firm to reach an agreement, resulting in a rolled-back executive order — may have backfired on the Trump administration. In ruling after ruling, judges cite the Paul Weiss affair as an example of how Trump's purported "national security" justifications for his executive orders never made any sense. Here are the five sharpest takedowns from judges in the Big Law fight. Coming out of the gate with the first summary judgment decision, US District Judge Beryl Howell compared Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie to a quote from William Shakespeare's "Henry VI." "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else," Howell wrote. Trump's executive order, Howell said, was meant to disarm a law firm that might challenge his power. "When Shakespeare's character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding '[a]way with him,' referring to an educated clerk, who 'can make obligations and write court hand,'" Howell wrote. "Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power." In an order protecting Jenner & Block, US District Judge John Bates wrote that Trump's order violated the US Constitution in two ways: It violated the First Amendment by using "the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression," and it sought to undermine the courts. "Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," Bates wrote. The "more pernicious" message of Trump's order was to prevent lawyers from protecting people against "governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy," according to Bates. "This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," he wrote. Like the other judges, Bates pointed to Trump backtracking his executive order targeting Paul Weiss as evidence that his legal justifications for executive orders targeting other law firms were not sincere. In each order, Trump has claimed that "national security" issues — which Justice Department lawyers struggled to explain in court filings and hearings — allowed him to issue orders stripping law firm employees of security clearances and cutting them off from government buildings and employees. Bates wrote that the rollback of the order targeting Paul Weiss demonstrated that it was never the real reason behind Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block. "If any doubt remains as to the sincerity of the invocation of national security, take a look at the Paul Weiss saga," Bates wrote. "Paul Weiss's executive order imposed the same tailored process on its employees' security clearances," he continued. "What it took to escape that process — denouncing a former partner, changing client selection and hiring practices, and pledging pro bono work to the President's liking — had not even a glancing relationship to national security." US District Judge Richard Leon's exclamation point-ridden order knocking down an executive order targeting WilmerHale quotes from Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers about the importance of an independent judiciary. He wasn't alone — Howell said in her earlier order that John Adams made the unpopular decision to represent British soldiers accused of murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," Leon wrote. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" Trump's executive orders violated those "fundamental rights," he wrote. "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," he wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" Leon's gumbo metaphor is, once again, a spicy swipe at Paul Weiss. In arguments leading up to each decision, judges weighed whether to block the entirety of each of Trump's orders or allow some parts to stand. In a footnote, Leon broke down the five different sections of the WilmerHale order and compared them to gumbo ingredients. "The Order is akin to a gumbo. Sections 2 through 5 are the meaty ingredients — e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters," the judge wrote. "But it is the roux — here, §1 — which holds everything together." Leon wrote that Trump rescinding Paul Weiss's order "in full" after it struck a deal shows that he intended the orders "to stand or fall as a whole." "A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together," he wrote. The judge also made clear that the gumbo is spicy. "As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, this gumbo gives the Court heartburn," he wrote. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Insider
Judges on Trump's war on Big Law: 5 explosive quotes from recent orders
President Donald Trump's recent string of court losses in his war on Big Law has resulted in sweeping smackdowns from federal judges. The judges, all sitting in the US District Court for Washington, DC, ruled against the Trump administration and blocked executive orders targeting WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. A decision is still pending in a fourth lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey over an order targeting the firm. Nine other law firms have struck deals with Trump, promising a collective near-$1 billion in pro bono work toward his political priorities while averting a punitive executive order. But the deal struck with Paul Weiss — the first firm to reach an agreement, resulting in a rolled-back executive order — may have backfired on the Trump administration. In ruling after ruling, judges cite the Paul Weiss affair as an example of how Trump's purported "national security" justifications for his executive orders never made any sense. Here are the five sharpest takedowns from judges in the Big Law fight. 1. 'Kill all the lawyers' Coming out of the gate with the first summary judgment decision, US District Judge Beryl Howell compared Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie to a quote from William Shakespeare's "Henry VI." "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else," Howell wrote. Trump's executive order, Howell said, was meant to disarm a law firm that might challenge his power. "When Shakespeare's character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding '[a]way with him,' referring to an educated clerk, who 'can make obligations and write court hand,'" Howell wrote. "Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power." 2. 'Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution' In an order protecting Jenner & Block, US District Judge John Bates wrote that Trump's order violated the US Constitution in two ways: It violated the First Amendment by using "the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression," and it sought to undermine the courts. "Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," Bates wrote. The "more pernicious" message of Trump's order was to prevent lawyers from protecting people against "governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy," according to Bates. "This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," he wrote. 3. "Take a look at the Paul Weiss saga" Like the other judges, Bates pointed to Trump backtracking his executive order targeting Paul Weiss as evidence that his legal justifications for executive orders targeting other law firms were not sincere. In each order, Trump has claimed that "national security" issues — which Justice Department lawyers struggled to explain in court filings and hearings — allowed him to issue orders stripping law firm employees of security clearances and cutting them off from government buildings and employees. Bates wrote that the rollback of the order targeting Paul Weiss demonstrated that it was never the real reason behind Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block. "If any doubt remains as to the sincerity of the invocation of national security, take a look at the Paul Weiss saga," Bates wrote. "Paul Weiss's executive order imposed the same tailored process on its employees' security clearances," he continued. "What it took to escape that process — denouncing a former partner, changing client selection and hiring practices, and pledging pro bono work to the President's liking — had not even a glancing relationship to national security." 4. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" US District Judge Richard Leon's exclamation point-ridden order knocking down an executive order targeting WilmerHale quotes from Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers about the importance of an independent judiciary. He wasn't alone — Howell said in her earlier order that John Adams made the unpopular decision to represent British soldiers accused of murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," Leon wrote. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" Trump's executive orders violated those "fundamental rights," he wrote. "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," he wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" 5. "The Order is akin to a gumbo" Leon's gumbo metaphor is, once again, a spicy swipe at Paul Weiss. In arguments leading up to each decision, judges weighed whether to block the entirety of each of Trump's orders or allow some parts to stand. In a footnote, Leon broke down the five different sections of the WilmerHale order and compared them to gumbo ingredients. "The Order is akin to a gumbo. Sections 2 through 5 are the meaty ingredients — e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters," the judge wrote. "But it is the roux — here, §1 — which holds everything together." Leon wrote that Trump rescinding Paul Weiss's order "in full" after it struck a deal shows that he intended the orders "to stand or fall as a whole." "A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together," he wrote. The judge also made clear that the gumbo is spicy. "As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, this gumbo gives the Court heartburn," he wrote.
Middle East Eye
20-05-2025
- Business
- Middle East Eye
King's College Cambridge to divest millions from 'occupation' and arms industry
One of the University of Cambridge's largest colleges has decided to divest from the arms industry and companies complicit in "the occupation of Ukraine and Palestinian territories", following months of student protests. King's College Cambridge, founded by Henry VI in 1441, announced this week that its governing body has agreed to "adopt a responsible investment policy" by the end of the calendar year. As of March 2023, the institution invested £2.2m ($2.94m) in arms companies including Lockheed Martin, Korea Aerospace, and BAE Systems. The college told its members on Tuesday that under the new policy, its financial investments will exclude companies that "are involved in activities generally recognised as illegal or contravening global norms, such as occupation". Its investments will also exclude companies that "produce military and nuclear weapons, weapons restricted by international treaty, or companies that produce key or dedicated components of such weapons". New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters King's has become the first Oxford or Cambridge college to take such measures, following months of protests by students at the college. The college said that the new policy "builds on wide-ranging discussions within the college about its investments and its values, prompted by the occupation of Ukraine and Palestinian territories". 'A result of sustained pressure' Student group King's Cambridge 4 Palestine said: "We welcome King's College's decision to commit to divestment, that came as a result of sustained pressure from KC4P and the Cambridge for Palestine Coalition as a whole. "KC4P implore the university and other colleges to follow the example set by King's, although the decision comes far too late for the thousands of Palestinians who have been starved, tortured and killed at the hands of the Israeli state." Cambridge University is made up of 31 self-governing colleges which operate autonomously, including in their financial investments. Trinity College Cambridge 'misled' students over Israel arms investments Read More » Many colleges have faced protests over their investments in the past 18 months. A protest encampment demanding transparency about the university's own investments and divestment from companies complicit in Israel's war on Gaza was set up by the student group Cambridge for Palestine last May. In July, Cambridge committed to funding opportunities for Palestinian academics and students to study at the university and pledged to establish a working group, including student representatives, to review its investments. In response, Cambridge for Palestine ended the encampment. But students accused the university in November of "stalling" on its commitments and resumed the protests, which turned into occupations of Senate House and Greenwich House, two university management buildings. In February this year the university was granted a High Court order blocking protests related to Israel and Palestine on key university sites until the end of July. An open letter signed by hundreds of students and members of staff at Cambridge in February condemned the university's application as an "assault on freedom of expression". Middle East Eye revealed last year that Trinity, the university's wealthiest college, had $78,089 invested in Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms company, which produces 85 percent of the drones and land-based equipment used by the Israeli army. Trinity students reported in May, after months of protests targeting the college, that they had been told it would divest from all arms companies. However, the college refused to comment on its investments, and freedom of information requests, seen by MEE late last year, revealed that the college continued to maintain investments in arms companies. In November, the college's master insisted that Trinity had "no interest in divesting from arms companies".
Boston Globe
16-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Law firms fighting back against Trump report security clearance suspensions
Advertisement The handful of firms that did not make deals -- and were then singled out in orders that accused them of working against the country's national interest -- sued, arguing that the orders amount to blatantly illegal retaliation for representing clients and employing lawyers the president opposes politically. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In at least one instance, a federal judge has agreed, bypassing a trial and permanently blocking the government from enforcing the terms of an order targeting the firm Perkins Coie. In the cases involving WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, judges have temporarily halted the Trump administration from implementing the orders aimed at them while litigation plays out. Even so, Paul Clement, a lawyer for WilmerHale, said in a filing that two of its lawyers had received letters informing them that their security clearances had been suspended. Advertisement 'This development underscores that the executive branch stands ready and willing to implement the executive order absent judicial intervention,' Clement wrote in a notice dated May 9. A lawyer for Jenner & Block filed a similar notice dated May 14 indicating that it had just learned one of its attorneys had their clearance suspended as well. Trump's executive orders directed agencies to essentially exile the firms from any work that runs through the federal government, such as by barring their attorneys from entering federal buildings, blacklisting them from federal contracts and taking away any security clearances held by their staff. As justification, the orders cited the fact that both firms had employed top members of the special unit that investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the question of whether Trump had worked to obstruct that investigation. They specifically named Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann, who returned to those firms in the years after the investigation wound down. Both left in 2021, as lawyers for the firms have noted. Both firms have asked the respective judges in their cases to skip past a trial and decide the relatively straightforward question of whether Trump's orders are legal and should be allowed to stand. Their cases are essentially identical in nature to those brought by other firms that found themselves in a similar position, such as Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey. When Perkins Coie received its final ruling from a judge this month, the answer to whether the president's order was lawful was an emphatic no. The ruling, from Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, compared the president's order to an attempt by a populist mob to destabilize society by rooting out the legal opposition in Shakespeare's play 'Henry VI.' Advertisement Howell's ruling also showed deep disdain for the firms that had cut deals with Trump to avoid retribution. Nine firms, including Paul Weiss; Rifkind; Wharton & Garrison; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom preemptively offered to take on millions of dollars in free work for largely uncontroversial causes, collectively approaching nearly $1 billion. But after extracting those deals, the White House moved to consider even more intrusive terms, including enlisting them in legal fights to further Trump's agenda. This article originally appeared in .
Daily Record
16-05-2025
- Daily Record
Fairytale castle with 300 acres and grand gardens perfect for family outing
With sprawling estate spanning approximately 300 acres and magnificent gardens, it's an ideal destination for a family outing this summer Did you know one of the UK's oldest brick structures is still standing? With an expansive estate covering roughly 300 acres and stunning gardens, it's the perfect spot for a family outing this summer if you're on your travels. This historical treasure is Herstmonceux Castle, located in Hailsham, just north of Eastbourne. Pronounced 'herst-mon-zoo', the castle was erected around 1441 by Sir Roger Fiennes, Treasurer of the Household for King Henry VI. Regrettably, the castle was dismantled in 1777, leaving only the exterior walls intact. Colonel Claude Lowther bought the castle in 1913 and commissioned its restoration by Sir Paul Latham in 1933. Today, Herstmonceux Castle serves as the UK campus for Queen's University of Canada, welcoming international students who come to study in this enchanting, Hogwarts-esque environment, reports SurreyLive. Things to do While the castle is closed to the public during the winter months, it opens its doors for all to enjoy once the gardens burst into bloom in the spring and summer. The castle grounds feature a diverse array of gardens, each with its own unique theme. Formal gardens with meticulously arranged displays contrast with wild meadows sprinkled with a variety of wildflowers. There are at least eight distinct gardens, including the Elizabethan Garden, complete with croquet lawns, and Queens Walk, adorned with Irish yew trees and a dry moat. The secluded garden is a haven for herbaceous perennials, springtime pink tulips and magnolia trees. As summer approaches, rambling roses burst into bloom against the garden walls. Tucked away within the castle's original walled garden is the Sundial and Rose Garden. A central sundial, surrounded by six others, features a bust of Sir John Flamsteed as a nod to the Royal Greenwich Observatory that once resided within the castle grounds. From 1946 until 1989, the observatory functioned on site. Visitors to the garden can marvel at an extensive collection of David Austin English roses, along with hybrid tea and shrub roses embellishing the beds. The Apothecary Garden presents a variety of medicinal and culinary herbs. This aromatic garden displays raised plant beds filled with lemon verbena, tiger grass and bay trees. Visitors can immerse themselves in the fragrant scents of the garden whilst learning about the uses of each herb, with informative labels dotted around the area. Several gardens are wheelchair accessible, while others provide the perfect backdrop for picnics or simply soaking up the picturesque surroundings. Dogs on leads are welcome, and a play area is available for children. Those wishing to explore the castle interior will need to purchase a guided tour ticket, as free roaming inside is not allowed. A host of events take place within the castle grounds throughout the summer. Visitors can enjoy a variety of activities such as falconry displays, comedy shows and exhibitions. The on-site café and terrace, with their breathtaking views of the medieval castle, provide the perfect setting for a coffee or tea break, complemented by a slice of cake. More information Opening times April to June: 10am to 5pm (last admission 3pm) July to September: 10am to 7pm (last admission 5pm) October: 10am to 5pm (last admission 3pm) Winter opening times (Nov 2025 to March 2026) to be confirmed Admission and tickets Gardens and grounds admission day ticket: Adults £10, students £8, children four to 17 £5 and free for children under four and for carers Castle and garden tours: £4 Tour times April to June 11am, 1pm and 3pm July to September 11am, 1pm, 3pm and 5pm October to December: to be confirmed Accessibility The main gardens are wheelchair accessible with reserved parking nearby close to the disabled toilet facility Ramp access to the courtyard and café Two manual wheelchairs are available on first come first served basis and can be reserved by calling 01323 833816 Fun for the family Play area for children Marlow Rope Maze Tree swing Activity sheets
