Latest news with #JennerandBlock
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Trump's campaign against law firms sees setback as judge blocks order
The ruling on Tuesday in favour of WilmerHale marks the third time this month that a federal judge in Washington has deemed Trump's series of law firm executive orders AP Washington US President Donald Trump's campaign against the legal profession hit another setback as a federal judge struck down an executive order that sought to sanction one of the country's most prestigious law firms. The ruling on Tuesday in favour of WilmerHale marks the third time this month that a federal judge in Washington has deemed Trump's series of law firm executive orders to be unconstitutional and permanently barred their enforcement. The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! wrote US district judge Richard Leon. To permit the order to stand, Leon wrote, would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers". The firm applauded the ruling from Leon, an appointee of former Republican president George W Bush. The court's decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients. We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients, a spokesperson for the firm said. The ruling was similar to the one from Friday by a different judge that rejected a Trump edict against the firm of Jenner and Block and another one from earlier in the month in favour of the firm Perkins Coie. Taken together, the decisions have marked a blunt repudiation of Trump's actions, which the law firms have called an affront to the legal system and inconsistent with the foundational principle that lawyers can represent clients or causes without government reprisal. The firms faced executive orders that sought to impose the same set of punishing sanctions, including mandating the suspension of attorney security clearances and barring employees from accessing federal buildings. The orders have been part of a broader effort by the president to reshape American civil society by targeting perceived adversaries in hopes of extracting concessions from them and bending them to his will. In his ruling, Leon said the provisions of the order against WilmerHale constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech! The Order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm's ability to effectively represent its clients! He added: The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavoured by President Trump, you will be punished! Several of the firms singled out for sanctions have either done legal work that Trump has opposed, or currently have or previously had associations with prosecutors who at one point investigated the president. The order against WilmerHale, for instance, cited the fact that the firm previously employed former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, who led an investigation during Trump's first term into potential ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Exacts New Retribution Against His Prosecutors
Morning Memo comes to you today from Chicago, where Josh Marshall and Kate Riga did their podcast in front of a live audience last night. Thanks to everyone who came out for the first TPM event outside of NYC and DC. Sign up for the email version of Morning Memo. Two seemingly disparate developments came together yesterday to show that, despite court setbacks, President Trump and his MAGA supporters in Congress remain hellbent on exacting retribution against the prosecutors involved in investigating him. Jay Bratt, a member of Special Counsel Jack Smith's team who led the prosecution of Trump in the Mar-a-Lago case, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination rather than be deposed by House Judiciary Committee Republicans as part of their investigate the investigators vendetta. To be clear, there are no credible allegations of wrongdoing against Bratt. Rather, his invocation of the Fifth Amendment shows that even a longtime DOJ prosecutor has no confidence that the Trump DOJ will conduct itself in a lawful manner, putting him at risk of baseless and vindictive prosecution. 'This administration and its proxies have made no effort to hide their willingness to weaponize the machinery of government against those they perceive as political enemies' said Bratt spokesperson Peter Carr, a former DOJ spokesperson fired by the new administration. 'That should alarm every American who believes in the rule of law. In light of these undeniable and deeply troubling circumstances, Mr. Bratt had no choice but to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.' Faced with the specter of Trump retribution, Bratt left DOJ in January before the inauguration, anticipating things like getting called up to the Hill for show trials and other forms of harassment and intimidation. I sometimes wonder if I need to spell it out more clearly to drive the point home: career derailed, forced to retain counsel, made a public pariah … it starts to add up, financially, emotionally, and otherwise. It also serves as a threat to civil servants everywhere. A lawyer at the firm Jenner and Block has had his security clearance suspended in another prong of President Trump's attack on major law firms – but, more importantly for our purposes, retribution against his prosecutors. The unnamed lawyer apparently learned he had lost his security clearance when the Justice Department alerted the judge in a criminal case the lawyer was defending. A few observations: This is second time this week that lawyers at Trump-targeted law firm lawyers have lost security clearances even as law firms have been mostly successful at winning their cases against the Trump executive orders. The Jenner and Block lawyer appears crippled from representing his client in what is apparently a case that involves classified information. The defendant's own defense is crippled by the loss or at least the impairment of his lawyer's ability to represent him. This all adds up to insidious retaliatory behavior that strikes at the heart of the legal system and the right to counsel. But perhaps most significantly, this is part of the larger retaliation against former Trump prosecutors like Jay Bratt above. The Jenner and Block executive order explicitly targeted the firm for having hired Andrew Weissmann when he left Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team. The Trump DOJ unconstitutionally retaliated against the American Bar Association when it terminated a grants program for victims of domestic violence, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled. Cooper concluded that the Justice Department failed to show that it had a basis for terminating the grants other than retaliation against the ABA for being involved in suing the Trump administration. NBC News: 'Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has fired two top intelligence officials who oversaw a recent intelligence assessment which contradicted President Donald Trump's assertions that the gang Tren de Aragua is operating under the direction of the Venezuelan regime, two officials said Wednesday. In a new filing in the case seeking to retrieve the Venezuelan nationals incarcerated in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, the Trump administration is fighting hard to prevent any discovery into whether they are effectively in constructive custody of the United States. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck takes a close look at the state of play of the Alien Enemies Act cases across the country: While Kilmar Abrego Garcia marks three months in prison in El Salvador as of today, the Trumpian absurdism plays out in DC: U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles of the Eastern District of Virginia ordered the release of Indian-born Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University researcher whose legal status was unilaterally revoked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio part of a crackdown on pro-Palestinian academics. His deportation proceedings will still proceed in immigration court. Trump DOJ official Ed Martin revealed that he is under investigation by D.C.'s Office of Disciplinary Counsel. While he didn't make the details of the investigation public, Martin is presumably the subject of a bar complaint from his just concluded tenure as acting U.S. attorney in D.C. I don't want to overplay the significance of this sign of resistance from Republicans on the Hill, but after nearly four months of being run over roughshod by the President, they seem to have stiffened every so slightly in the face of this intrusion on legislative branch entities. Via Politico: A White House push to seize control of the Library of Congress over the past week has run temporarily aground due to quiet but firm resistance from Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the sensitive situation. While they have not challenged Trump's abrupt firing last week of Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, they have questioned his power to name an acting successor and other library officials, including the nation's top copyright official. That opposition has left Trump's intended leader for the library, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, in at least temporary limbo. The interplay of executive and legislative powers plus the overlapping and confusing vacancy laws make this is a thorny legal issue. DOGE must resume responding to a FOIA request from the government watchdog CREW, the DC Circuit Court of Appealed ruled. The Trump White House plan to have Congress retroactively bless the DOGE cuts is running into stiff headwinds on the Hill. DOGE has stopped claiming credit for killing dozens of federal contracts after the NYT reported that they had already been reinstated. TPM will liveblog the Supreme Court oral arguments today in the birthright citizenship/nationwide injunctions case beginning at 10 a.m. ET. 'I will not yield to disrespectful men.'–Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in a late night exchange with Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Law firms can't buy their way out of Trump's threats — and they shouldn't try
In court Monday, a federal judge framed the Trump administration's executive order against law firm Jenner and Block as an attempt to 'punish' the firm. We agree, and would add only that its further purpose was to intimidate others. We're both former Justice Department officials, one serving under a Republican president, one under a Democratic one. We're shocked not only by the orders targeting specific law firms but by how easily so many others have buckled — and at the country's expense. The president and his advisors have been gloating. As the White House press secretary put it, 'Big Law continues to bend the knee to President Trump.' Nine firms made deals with the administration rather than fight, eight of them doing so without the administration even issuing an order against them. All of these firms may think they have minimized the damage. But the true cost is coming into view. Both the orders and the deals threaten to corrode the rule of law and chill access to quality legal representation, and the deals may well backfire on the firms. No doubt, this assault put the firms in a difficult position. Their leaders may feel they cut savvy deals, giving up little that really mattered. We think that's wrong. To start, these deals vindicated the president's strategy and furthered his retributive campaign. Each new deal made others more likely. And they emboldened the administration to taunt and even defy the courts that directed it to halt enforcement of its orders. In a memo to agency officials, for example, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought seemingly attempted to skirt the court's order to halt enforcement of the executive order against Jenner, disparaging the judge as 'unelected' and telling agencies they 'of course' could still choose 'with whom to work.' Beyond that, any peace these firms have bought will likely be short-lived. These agreements don't bar the president from issuing new orders if these firms displease him — that threat hangs over their heads. And clients require their lawyers to have independence from outside influence and a total commitment to fight for them. Clients will now wonder whether a firm is compromised by its need to stay in the president's good graces. (Think of how the unresolved prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams impaired his ability to govern independently.) Already, the president is threatening to use these commitments to tap firms for the administration's causes. Flanked by coal miners this month, Trump declared, 'We're going to use some of those firms to work with [coal companies] on your leasing and other things' in the face of state environmental regulations. The administration also proposed asking firms for pro bono help with tariff negotiations with foreign countries. Additionally, recent reporting indicates that the administration is also discussing enlisting these firms to provide free legal services to the Department of Government Efficiency and the Justice Department, and even possibly to the president and his allies on personal matters. One allied group created by the Heritage Foundation proposed that firms give it $10 million in free legal services, promising 'in return' to 'publicly acknowledge' that support, a way to stay on the president's good side. Implicit threats lurk not far behind these calls, should firms refuse. But even more important than the cases the firms may be called upon to take on are the cases they, and others, may now choose to avoid. All this has begun to chill access to legal representation, especially pro bono assistance. Many civil society organizations we work with have reported that they suddenly can't find pro bono help for much of their work. Individuals or groups targeted by the administration are struggling to get legal representation, paid and pro bono, especially from larger firms. That's a sharp contrast to the recent past, including the first Trump administration. Then, according to an estimate from the Brennan Center for Justice, over 50 firms — including many large firms — helped challenge executive orders that prohibited travel and refugee resettlement from select predominantly Muslim countries. Today, few will challenge even the most blatantly unconstitutional actions. Consider the Inauguration Day order purporting to end birthright citizenship. Despite widespread consensus that the order is unconstitutional, only four major firms have gotten involved, and those that made deals are absent from that list. One organization we work with is filing a brief in one of the challenges and reported that four firms backed out after agreeing to work on it. As former senior Justice Department officials, we defended government actions in court. Sometimes we were unhappy with our opponents' claims. But we never viewed their lawyers as enemies to be personally destroyed or forcibly converted. Quite the opposite. We and our colleagues recognized the importance of bringing legal issues to independent judges for adversarial testing, and that the attorneys who do so play a crucial role in any country priding itself on being a nation of laws. That's what we are in danger of losing, and why these latest efforts against the legal community should concern all of us. At stake is not just the reputation of a handful of law firms, but the integrity of the legal system itself. Vanita Gupta is a former associate attorney general in the Biden administration. Peter Keisler is a former acting attorney general and former assistant attorney general for the Civil Division in the Bush administration. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
29-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Law firms can't buy their way out of Trump's threats — and they shouldn't try
In court Monday, a federal judge framed the Trump administration's executive order against law firm Jenner and Block as an attempt to 'punish' the firm. We agree, and would add only that its further purpose was to intimidate others. We're both former Justice Department officials, one serving under a Republican president, one under a Democratic one. We're shocked not only by the orders targeting specific law firms but by how easily so many others have buckled — and at the country's expense. The president and his advisors have been gloating. As the White House press secretary put it, 'Big Law continues to bend the knee to President Trump.' Nine firms made deals with the administration rather than fight, eight of them doing so without the administration even issuing an order against them. All of these firms may think they have minimized the damage. But the true cost is coming into view. Both the orders and the deals threaten to corrode the rule of law and chill access to quality legal representation, and the deals may well backfire on the firms. No doubt, this assault put the firms in a difficult position. Their leaders may feel they cut savvy deals, giving up little that really mattered. We think that's wrong. To start, these deals vindicated the president's strategy and furthered his retributive campaign. Each new deal made others more likely. And they emboldened the administration to taunt and even defy the courts that directed it to halt enforcement of its orders. In a memo to agency officials, for example, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought seemingly attempted to skirt the court's order to halt enforcement of the executive order against Jenner, disparaging the judge as 'unelected' and telling agencies they 'of course' could still choose 'with whom to work.' Beyond that, any peace these firms have bought will likely be short-lived. These agreements don't bar the president from issuing new orders if these firms displease him — that threat hangs over their heads. And clients require their lawyers to have independence from outside influence and a total commitment to fight for them. Clients will now wonder whether a firm is compromised by its need to stay in the president's good graces. (Think of how the unresolved prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams impaired his ability to govern independently.) Already, the president is threatening to use these commitments to tap firms for the administration's causes. Flanked by coal miners this month, Trump declared, 'We're going to use some of those firms to work with [coal companies] on your leasing and other things' in the face of state environmental regulations. The administration also proposed asking firms for pro bono help with tariff negotiations with foreign countries. Additionally, recent reporting indicates that the administration is also discussing enlisting these firms to provide free legal services to the Department of Government Efficiency and the Justice Department, and even possibly to the president and his allies on personal matters. One allied group created by the Heritage Foundation proposed that firms give it $10 million in free legal services, promising 'in return' to 'publicly acknowledge' that support, a way to stay on the president's good side. Implicit threats lurk not far behind these calls, should firms refuse. But even more important than the cases the firms may be called upon to take on are the cases they, and others, may now choose to avoid. All this has begun to chill access to legal representation, especially pro bono assistance. Many civil society organizations we work with have reported that they suddenly can't find pro bono help for much of their work. Individuals or groups targeted by the administration are struggling to get legal representation, paid and pro bono, especially from larger firms. That's a sharp contrast to the recent past, including the first Trump administration. Then, according to an estimate from the Brennan Center for Justice, over 50 firms — including many large firms — helped challengeexecutive orders that prohibited travel and refugee resettlement from select predominantly Muslim countries. Today, few will challenge even the most blatantly unconstitutional actions. Consider the Inauguration Day order purporting to end birthright citizenship. Despite widespread consensus that the order is unconstitutional, only four major firms have gotten involved, and those that made deals are absent from that list. One organization we work with is filing a brief in one of the challenges and reported that four firms backed out after agreeing to work on it. As former senior Justice Department officials, we defended government actions in court. Sometimes we were unhappy with our opponents' claims. But we never viewed their lawyers as enemies to be personally destroyed or forcibly converted. Quite the opposite. We and our colleagues recognized the importance of bringing legal issues to independent judges for adversarial testing, and that the attorneys who do so play a crucial role in any country priding itself on being a nation of laws. That's what we are in danger of losing, and why these latest efforts against the legal community should concern all of us. At stake is not just the reputation of a handful of law firms, but the integrity of the legal system itself. Vanita Gupta is a former associate attorney general in the Biden administration. Peter Keisler is a former acting attorney general and former assistant attorney general for the Civil Division in the Bush administration.
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Another law firm targeted by Trump, Jenner and Block, suing to block executive order
The law firm Jenner and Block filed suit against the Trump Administration Friday seeking to block an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last week that targeted its attorneys' security clearances and essentially shuttered any interactions with the federal government. "The Order threatens not only Jenner, but also its clients and the legal system itself," the firm said Friday in its lawsuit. "Our Constitution, top to bottom, forbids attempts by the government to punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate." MORE: Perkins Coie files suit to block Trump executive order aimed at punishing firm Jenner and Block is now the second of five firms targeted by Trump to bring a legal challenge against what it describes as a blatantly "unconstitutional" executive order, following a successful effort by the law firm Perkins Coie to have a federal judge temporarily block a similar order that targeted it over its representation of then-candidate Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. Friday, accuses the Trump Administration of engaging in a sweeping campaign to intimidate major law firms that either represented or once counted among its ranks individuals who he has labeled his political enemies. "These orders send a clear message to the legal profession: Cease certain representations adverse to the government and renounce the Administration's critics -- or suffer the consequences," the suit said. "The orders also attempt to pressure businesses and individuals to question or even abandon their associations with their chosen counsel, and to chill bringing legal challenges at all." The filing comes amid a crisis that has gripped other "Big Law" firms in Washington, as top attorneys debate whether to fight back, cut a deal or stay quiet wondering whether they will be singled out next. MORE: Museums and parks must remove some items related to race and gender: Executive order On Thursday, Trump signed another executive order targeting WilmerHale -- citing its hiring of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and two of his top deputies, after they had investigated the 2016 Trump campaign's ties to Russia. In a statement reacting to the order, a spokesperson for WilmerHale said they planned to pursue "all appropriate remedies to this unlawful order." Another law firm targeted by Trump, Jenner and Block, suing to block executive order originally appeared on
