Latest news with #Republican-appointee
Reuters
28-04-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US law firm Jenner asks court to permanently bar Trump executive order
April 28 (Reuters) - U.S. law firm Jenner & Block will ask a judge on Monday to permanently bar U.S. President Donald Trump 's executive order punishing the firm for its affiliation with a prosecutor who investigated ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia. The firm will urge Republican-appointee U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington to reject the entirety of Trump's March 25 order. The hearing, set to begin at 10:30 a.m. ET (1430 GMT), marks the latest legal clash in the Republican president's pressure campaign against prominent law firms whose lawyers or cases he opposes. Trump's order against Chicago-founded Jenner cited its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a top federal prosecutor in U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump has described the Russia investigation as a "hoax" and "witch hunt." The executive order sought to restrict Jenner's lawyers from accessing federal buildings and officials and to end government contracts held by its clients. Jenner sued, calling the order a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections against government abridgment of speech and Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, a requirement for the government to use a fair legal process. Three other firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey — have sued the administration to permanently block the executive orders he issued against them. Judges in all four lawsuits against the administration issued temporary rulings that blocked key provisions of the White House orders. Nine law firms, including Jenner rivals Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher and Skadden Arps, have pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services to causes the White House supports and made other concessions to avoid being targeted by Trump. Jenner is one of more than a dozen law firms that are currently suing the Trump administration over its efforts to curb transgender rights and to freeze federal spending at many agencies.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US law firm Jenner asks court to permanently bar Trump executive order
By Mike Scarcella (Reuters) -U.S. law firm Jenner & Block will ask a judge on Monday to permanently bar U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order punishing the firm for its affiliation with a prosecutor who investigated ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia. The firm will urge Republican-appointee U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington to reject the entirety of Trump's March 25 order. The hearing, set to begin at 10:30 a.m. ET (1430 GMT), marks the latest legal clash in the Republican president's pressure campaign against prominent law firms whose lawyers or cases he opposes. Trump's order against Chicago-founded Jenner cited its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a top federal prosecutor in U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump has described the Russia investigation as a "hoax" and "witch hunt." The executive order sought to restrict Jenner's lawyers from accessing federal buildings and officials and to end government contracts held by its clients. Jenner sued, calling the order a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections against government abridgment of speech and Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, a requirement for the government to use a fair legal process. Three other firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey — have sued the administration to permanently block the executive orders he issued against them. Judges in all four lawsuits against the administration issued temporary rulings that blocked key provisions of the White House orders. Nine law firms, including Jenner rivals Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher and Skadden Arps, have pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services to causes the White House supports and made other concessions to avoid being targeted by Trump. Jenner is one of more than a dozen law firms that are currently suing the Trump administration over its efforts to curb transgender rights and to freeze federal spending at many agencies.
Bloomberg
26-03-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
What Happens When US Economic Data Can't Be Trusted?
Subscribe to Trumponomics on Apple Podcasts Subscribe to Trumponomics on Spotify Last week, while many in the US were focused on court orders and secret flights to El Salvador, something else happened that we at Trumponomics think should have gotten more attention. President Donald Trump fired two commissioners on the US Federal Trade Commission— apparently for being members of the Democratic Party. And while firing federal employees —legally or otherwise—is common practice in Trump's Washington, it's not supposed to happen at an independent agency—not like this anyway. But if it can happen to officials there, that raises questions about whether folks at other independent bodies, even senior people like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, could be arbitrarily jettisoned, too. That in turn made us think about developments in other corners of Washington that are raising red flags about the independence and oversight not only of agencies that implement economic and regulatory policies, but the data itself—data on which the world judges the health of the American economy. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Elon Musk have been floating trial balloons on this topic of late. So on this week's episode, we've invited David Wilcox, director of US economic research for Bloomberg Economics, and editor Molly Smith to discuss the historical echoes of Trump's move. Wilcox addresses existing legal restrictions on the Republican's ability to fire independent officials, whether the Republican-appointee controlled Supreme Court is waiting for a chance to further empower the executive and what could happen when US economic data can no longer be trusted.
Bloomberg
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
John Roberts Joins Fray as Trump Intensifies Court Attacks
US Chief Justice John Roberts broke his silence on Donald Trump's intensifying attacks upon America's third branch of government as his administration inched closer to triggering a constitutional crisis. The last straw for Roberts, a Republican-appointee who in 2024 helped broadly expand presidential immunity, apparently was the 78-year-old president's invective-filled call for the impeachment of a veteran federal judge hearing a challenge to forced deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' Roberts said. 'The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' The chief justice's historic rebuke came after Trump—himself a convicted felon twice impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors—attempted to paint James Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, as being politically biased.
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wisconsin Supreme Court says swing state's embattled elections chief can remain in post
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday that the swing state's nonpartisan top elections official, who has been targeted for removal by Republican lawmakers over the 2020 presidential election, can remain in her post despite not being reappointed and confirmed by the state Senate. Republicans who control the state Senate tried to fire Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe in 2023, leading the commission to sue in an effort to keep Wolfe on the job. The state Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower court's ruling in Wolfe's favor. The 7-0 ruling means that Wolfe can remain in her position and not face a confirmation vote by the Republican-controlled Senate. The court said that no vacancy exists and, because of that, the elections commission 'does not have a duty to appoint a new administrator to replace Wolfe simply because her term has ended.' The elections commission and legislative leaders who brought the lawsuit did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment. The court relied on the precedent set in its 2022 ruling that allowed Republican-appointee Fred Prehn to remain on the state Natural Resources Board after his term had ended. That ruling came when the court was controlled by conservatives. The court now has a 4-3 liberal majority. Reliance on the Prehn decision should not be taken as an endorsement of the reasoning in that case, liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote in a concurring opinion. She was joined by fellow liberal justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky. Because neither side asked for that ruling to be overturned or modified, it was not addressed in the Wolfe decision, the liberal justices said. 'Those justices cannot have it both ways,' Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and fellow conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in response. 'If the rule of law is to govern, the resolution of each case should not depend upon the individual occupying the office,' they wrote. Wolfe was targeted for removal by Republican lawmakers who were unhappy with the 2020 presidential election won by former President Joe Biden. Wolfe was the subject of conspiracy theories and targeted by threats from election skeptics who falsely claim she was part of a plot to rig the 2020 vote in favor of Biden. Biden's win by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firm's review, and multiple state and federal lawsuits. Republicans have not made similar calls for an investigation into the 2024 election won by President Donald Trump. Wolfe was first appointed for the nonpartisan position in 2018 and confirmed to a four-year term by the GOP-controlled state Senate in 2019. The commission is overseen by a bipartisan board that is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, and Wolfe is head of the nonpartisan staff. When Wolfe was up for reappointment in 2023, all six members of the commission voiced support for her. Three Republicans voted to reappoint, but the three Democrats abstained, resulting in a deadlocked vote. Had Wolfe gotten a fourth vote in support, her appointment would have been sent to the Senate, which then could have voted to fire her. Republicans argued that the law requires the elections commission to appoint a successor when the administrator's term expires. Wolfe's term ended 20 months ago. Even though Wolfe's appointment was not forwarded to the Senate, Republican senators voted in September 2023 to fire Wolfe. The commission sued to challenge that Senate vote. Republican legislative leaders changed course and claimed in court filings that their vote to fire Wolfe was merely 'symbolic' and had no legal effect. A Dane County judge ruled that Wolfe is legally serving as administrator of the elections commission as a holdover given that the commission did not have a majority vote to appoint her. Republican leaders of the Legislature appealed, but the state Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling. Republican senators previously voted to reject the confirmation of Wolfe's predecessor, Mike Haas, in 2018 and also fired Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' agriculture department secretary in 2019. Scott Bauer, The Associated Press
