Latest news with #LorenAliKhan
Toronto Star
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Toronto Star
Judge restores Democrat to Federal Trade Commission, ruling her firing by Trump was illegal
A federal judge has restored a Democrat to the Federal Trade Commission, ruling that President Donald Trump illegally fired her earlier this year in his efforts to exert control over independent agencies across the government. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled late Thursday that federal law protects FTC commissioners from being removed by the president without cause, citing a key 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the FTC.
Reuters
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
What Republican, Democratic judges said about Trump's law firm orders
June 30 (Reuters) - Over the past two months, four separate federal judges in Washington have sided decisively with each of the law firms that sued the Trump administration to block White House executive orders against them. Below are highlights from the rulings, which said President Donald Trump illegally restricted the firms' business in retaliation for cases they took or attorneys they hired. The White House, which has not yet appealed the decisions, has called the orders a legitimate exercise of presidential authority. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, ruling for Susman Godfrey: --'The Order goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The Order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law.' --'Defendants do not point to any statutory authority that empowers the President to punish a law firm for its choice of clients, donations, or other speech, and the court is not aware of any law that would support such action.' --"Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full." U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruling for WilmerHale: --'The President, by issuing the Order, is wielding his authority to punish a law firm for engaging in litigation conduct the President personally disfavors.' --'The Order is plainly motivated by the President's desire to retaliate against WilmerHale for its protected activity.' --'The WilmerHale Order violates the separation of powers by attempting to usurp the Judiciary's authority to resolve cases and sanction abuses of the judicial process.' --'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!' U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ruling for Jenner & Block: --'It casts a chill over the whole of the legal profession, leaving lawyers around the country weighing the necessity of vigorous representation against the peril of crossing the federal government. The order's chilling effect is uniquely harmful for its focus on pro bono work.' --'The serial executive orders targeting law firms have produced something of an organic experiment, control group and all, for how firms react to the orders and how they might escape them." U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, ruling for Perkins Coie: --"The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system's fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era." --"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." --"If the founding history of this country is any guide, 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 when this period of American history is written."
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US law firm Susman Godfrey defeats Trump executive order
By Mike Scarcella and David Thomas (Reuters) -A federal judge on Friday permanenently blocked a White House executive order against law firm Susman Godfrey, capping a string of court victories for firms targeted for their association with President Donald Trump's perceived enemies. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan said Trump's order unlawfully retaliated against Susman for cases it has taken and its efforts to promote racial diversity, violating the firm's rights to free speech and due process of law under the U.S. Constitution. Trump's executive order "goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States," AliKhan wrote in her 53-page ruling. "The order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law." Trump's order had suspended security clearances for Susman's lawyers and restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement that granting security clearances is "a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the president." Susman in a statement said AliKhan's ruling was a "resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation." AliKhan is the fourth federal judge in Washington to reach a similar conclusion, following wins for Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale in parallel cases. The rulings by a mix of Democratic and Republican-appointed judges each decisively rejected Trump's orders suspending security clearances at the firms, restricting their access to government officials and seeking to cancel federal contracts held by their clients. Nine prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis, have settled with the White House to avoid similar actions against them by the administration. Those firms cumulatively pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services to support causes backed by Trump. Some later argued that the threat of being targeted by the administration left them no alternative. Susman in its lawsuit called Trump's order retaliation for its defense of the integrity of the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden. The firm represents election technology supplier Dominion Voting Systems in cases that challenged false claims the election was stolen from Trump through widespread voting fraud. Trump also had accused Susman of racial discrimination in its hiring practices. AliKhan at a hearing on May 8 repeatedly questioned a lawyer for the Justice Department about the administration's failure to show that the firm's employment programs or its work for Dominion violated the law. AliKhan held that Trump's executive order "constitutes unlawful retaliation against Susman for activities that are protected by the First Amendment, including its representation of certain clients, its donations to certain causes, and its expression of its beliefs regarding diversity." The Justice Department and White House have defended Trump's executive orders against law firms as lawful exercises of presidential power. Trump accused the firms of "weaponizing" the justice system against him and his political allies.
Bloomberg
28-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Fourth Trump Executive Order Against Law Firm Nullified by Judge
A DC federal judge has struck down President Donald Trump's executive order targeting Houston-founded law firm Susman Godfrey, marking the fourth takedown of an executive order targeting a law firm. US District Court Judge Loren AliKhan said Friday the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.
Washington Post
27-06-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries.
