Latest news with #JudgeRichardLeon
New York Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Judge Considers Early Release of Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination Documents
A federal judge in Washington said on Wednesday that he was open to lifting a court order ahead of schedule to release potentially sensitive documents related to the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., nodding to an executive order President Trump signed in January aimed at achieving that outcome. During a hearing on Wednesday to discuss the possibility, Judge Richard Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia nonetheless cautioned that he intended to proceed slowly and prioritize privacy in an extended process to determine whether any documents should be released before 2027, the date that another judge set in 1977 for the documents to be unsealed. Judge Leon said he would start by ordering the National Archives to show him — and him alone — an inventory of all the sealed materials related to Dr. King that have been stored there. He said that the inventory, which the government says it has not reviewed, might help shed light on whether documents specifically related to Dr. King's assassination in 1968, and the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that followed, had been separated out and could be efficiently processed. The hearing on Wednesday came through a lawsuit brought by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the civil rights organization based in Atlanta associated with Dr. King, which has sued to halt any effort to unseal documents early. It came in response to an executive order Mr. Trump signed in January that directed intelligence agencies to set in motion plans to release records related to the assassinations of Dr. King, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
28-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: U.S. Suspends Visa Interviews for Foreign Students
President Trump's order targeting the law firm WilmerHale was pointed, given the firm's longtime association with Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the first Trump administration. President Trump's campaign of retribution against elite law firms that have resisted his efforts to subjugate them is, so far, not going well. On Tuesday, a judge struck down his executive order seeking to crush WilmerHale, one of several firms the president says have wronged him or have done work for his political opponents. The decision was the latest in an unbroken string of victories for the handful of firms that have sued to stop him. Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the order was unconstitutional and 'must be struck down in its entirety,' adding that Mr. Trump appeared intent on driving the firm to the bargaining table by imposing 'a kitchen sink of severe sanctions.' The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution. Judges have already rejected similarly punitive executive orders aimed at the firms Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, and lawyers representing Susman Godfrey asked a fourth judge earlier this month to issue a final decision in their case. Judge Leon said that despite his decisive ruling, the firm had already suffered because of Mr. Trump's actions. Even though he had temporarily blocked the order one day after the president signed it, he noted that existing clients had already started 'curtailing their relationships with WilmerHale, and new clients are taking their business elsewhere.' '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!' Judge Leon wrote in a 73-page opinion laced with more than two dozen exclamation points. 'Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence,' he wrote. 'Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no executive order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights.' So far, federal judges have steadfastly rejected what they have described as an effort by the White House to subjugate the nation's top law firms. All through March, Mr. Trump issued half a dozen orders individually demonizing firms that had worked for prominent Democrats or aided in efforts to investigate his ties to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. In each case, the orders leveraged the force of the federal government to give the threats teeth, including by having those firms' lawyers barred from federal buildings and stripped of their security clearances. The order targeting WilmerHale was especially pointed, given the firm's longtime association with Robert S. Mueller III. He returned there upon retiring from his role as the special counsel overseeing the investigation into Moscow's election interference that boosted Mr. Trump against his rival in the 2016 race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Mr. Mueller left the firm in 2021. Along with other firms such as Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, WilmerHale sued to stop the executive orders from taking effect, asking Judge Leon to proceed directly to a decision with no trial, as the only question at issue was whether or not a president could take such an extraordinary action. At the same time, other white shoe firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden and Latham & Watkins agreed to take on hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of pro bono legal work on behalf of causes Mr. Trump favors, avoiding similarly calibrated executive orders. In his opinion, Judge Leon colorfully dismissed assertions by the government that its targeting of WilmerHale was something routine and apolitical, brushing off the notion with a brusque 'please — that dog won't hunt!' 'Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech,' he wrote. 'The order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm's ability to effectively represent its clients!' Earlier this month, while Judge Leon was deliberating on his decision, the firm wrote to inform the court that the government had proceeded to suspend two of its attorneys' security clearances. During a hearing in April, Richard Lawson, a lawyer for the government, told Judge Leon that the lawsuit was an effort to improperly constrain Mr. Trump's ability to 'investigate an area of concern,' despite the appearance that it infringed on the law firm's freedom of speech. Mr. Lawson had argued in several cases related to law firms that the president enjoys considerable authority to control how the government contracts with and affords access to private companies. Representing WilmerHale, Paul Clement, the U.S. solicitor general under former President George W. Bush, said the case boiled down to resentment and retaliation by Mr. Trump, who he said had blatantly singled the firm out over its client list and staff. Mr. Clement said the White House had flexed its power to hurt the firm in ways that were already jeopardizing its business, even just by raising doubt among prospective clients that the firm's lawyers would have the proper clearances and access to take on basic legal work. 'With all respect, there are some subjects where the executive's hands should be tied,' Mr. Clement said. 'If the executive is inclined to interfere with the traditions that are essentially necessary to have the rule of law in the adversarial system of justice, the president's hands should be tied,' he added. While the firms that rejected a deal and fought back have now notched a string of decisive wins in court, others that sought to appease Mr. Trump have seen high-profile resignations and internal discord. Last week, four of Paul Weiss's best-known partners resigned to start their own venture, after others, including the firm's top pro bono leader, left shortly after the order. In the meantime, Mr. Trump has recently mused about stretching the limits of the pro bono agreements he reached with other firms and weighed demanding that they do personal or political work. Finding that the order was essentially designed to harm WilmerHale's business, Judge Leon joined several of his colleagues in concluding that its larger intent was to intimidate other firms in a way that could damage the legal profession as a whole. 'The order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!'
The Independent
27-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Bush-appointed judge torches Trump with 27 exclamation points — and a gumbo recipe — in a ruling against an executive order
A conservative federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump 's executive order punishing a law firm tied to his political opponents 'must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,' dealing yet another blow to the president's retaliatory campaign against lawyers and legal groups that opposed his agenda. 'Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the founding fathers!' wrote Judge Richard Leon in Washington D.C. Leon's colorful 73-page opinion uses 27 exclamation points — including in the very second sentence — and compares Trump's executive order against the law firm WilmerHale to a gumbo that gives him 'heartburn,' whose recipe he included. 'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting,' wrote Leon, who was appointed by George W. Bush. '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,' he added. But nearly 250 years later, 'several executive orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence' within the last few months, Leon wrote. Trump's executive orders single out individual firms that worked for prominent Democratic officials or represented causes he opposed while imposing punitive measures on the law firms like banning their employees from federal buildings and stripping their security clearances. Several firms arranged deals with the Trump administration — including agreeing to perform millions of dollars in pro-bono work — to avoid the president's sanctions. WilmerHale had previously employed former special counsel Robert Mueller, who returned to the firm after leading the investigation into whether Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election to boost Trump's chances of winning. The firm also represented Democrats against Trump's 2020 election challenges, members of Congress seeking his tax records, and inspectors general who sued Trump after they were abruptly terminated at the start of his administration, among others. In his order on March 27, Trump claimed the firm 'abandoned the profession's highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.' The order accuses so-called 'Big Law' firms of actions that 'threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles.' In his order, Judge Leon slammed the administration for throwing 'a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!' He added: 'Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech! It both threatens and imposes sanctions and uses other means of coercion to suppress WilmerHale's representation of disfavored causes and clients.' Leon said Trump's executive order is clearly 'motivated by the president's desire to retaliate against WilmerHale for its protected activity.' This is 'not a legitimate government interest, and the order's unsupported assertion of national security will not save it!' he wrote. In a footnote in his ruling, Leon said Trump's executive order is 'akin to a gumbo.' Sections of the order outlining sanctions against the firm 'are the meaty ingredients—e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters,' Leon wrote. 'But it is the roux … which holds everything together,' he added, pointing to the president's justification for attacking the firm. 'A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together,' Leon wrote. 'This gumbo gives the Court heartburn.' Several federal judges in recent days have struck down similar orders. Last week, District Judge John Bates, another Bush appointee, blocked a near-identical order targeting the firm Jenner Block after finding it was clear retaliation for the firm's employment of Andrew Weissmann, whom Trump accused of making a career out of 'weaponized government and abuse of power.' 'Like the others in the series, this order … makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents and a lawyer Jenner once employed,' Bates wrote. Another federal judge is currently weighing a decision in a similar case against Trump's order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey.
Wall Street Journal
27-05-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Order Against Robert Mueller's Former Law Firm WilmerHale Is Struck Down
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down President Trump's executive order against the law firm WilmerHale, adding to a drumbeat of decisions that have rebuffed the White House campaign against the legal industry as unconstitutional. In a 73-page opinion, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court in Washington. D.C., said the executive order unconstitutionally infringed on freedoms that preserve an 'independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting.'
