Latest news with #Wharton&GarrisonLLP
Mint
28-04-2025
- Business
- Mint
Trump's first 100 days: Controversial decisions on DEI, employee layoffs, ending Birthright Citizenship, and more
In his first 100 days of a second term, US President Donald Trump made several controversial decisions that have sparked widespread debate across the political and social spectrum. These decisions have touched upon issues of diversity, civil rights, foreign diplomacy, and education, marking a defining period in his presidency. Here are some key actions and policies that have captured attention: One of Trump's first major actions was the dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across federal government agencies and the military. These programs, designed to address the nation's history of racial inequality, were immediately scrapped, citing them as "divisive." Trump also moved to target DEI programs at private law firms, public universities, and other institutions that receive federal funding or rely on federal approvals. This move has sparked backlash, with many arguing that it undermines efforts to create a more inclusive society. Trump's administration also implemented a massive downsizing of federal workers. Tens of thousands of employees were either laid off or offered buyouts. These layoffs came as part of a broader federal workforce reduction initiative, which Trump framed as necessary to curb government inefficiency. In another significant move, Trump issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. This controversial executive order was immediately challenged in court, with the issue now headed to the US Supreme Court for a final decision. Trump targeted several elite law firms, accusing them of not supporting his administration's policies. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP became the first of many firms to agree to provide approximately $1 billion worth of free legal work for projects Trump and his administration support. However, other law firms, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, refused Trump's demands and have filed lawsuits against the administration, bringing these legal issues into the courts. A key environmental policy change came when Trump opened a vast Pacific Ocean reserve, 750 miles west of Hawaii, to commercial fishing. The reserve, originally established by President George W. Bush and expanded under former President Barack Obama to nearly 500,000 square miles, had been protected to preserve endangered sea turtles and coral atolls. Trump's move to lift these protections has sparked concern among environmentalists about the future of marine life in the area. In a move impacting the LGBTQ+ community, Trump signed an executive order banning transgender student athletes from competing in women's sports. The order has been widely criticised by LGBTQ+ advocates and supporters of gender equality, who argue it undermines the rights of transgender individuals. Trump's administration also issued guidance to states, directing them to cease using Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for minors. This decision, part of Trump's broader push to restrict access to gender-affirming healthcare, has drawn strong opposition from advocates for transgender rights. In a highly controversial moment in international relations, President Trump reportedly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, a dramatic break from traditional diplomatic decorum. Trump's harsh treatment of Zelensky and subsequent actions led to a significant shift in US diplomacy, raising concerns about America's stance on foreign relations and its commitment to supporting global allies. Trump also clashed with Harvard University over the school's refusal to comply with his administration's demands. The administration threatened to freeze over $2 billion in federal funding and stripped the university of its tax-exempt status. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the threat undermined the school's academic independence. First Published: 29 Apr 2025, 03:48 AM IST
USA Today
05-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
An attack on the Constitution? Why Trump's moves to punish law firms are causing alarm
An attack on the Constitution? Why Trump's moves to punish law firms are causing alarm Show Caption Hide Caption GOP, Democrats grapple over judiciary power Congress held a hearing over the judiciary's role as multiple injunctions come on the heels of President Trump's executive orders. When President Donald Trump issued his first executive order imperiling the business of a law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, the legal community was in shock. 'I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through,' said Judge Beryl Howell in a D.C. federal trial court March 12, six days after Trump issued his order and one day after the firm sued. "It sends little chills down my spine," she said, to hear the government argue such orders are lawful if the president thinks the company's operations aren't in the nation's interest. Then the executive orders just kept coming, each complaining of a past hiring decision or client of the targeted firm. On March 14, it was Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, which had once hired a lawyer who went on to investigate Trump in a New York prosecutor's office. On March 25, it was Jenner & Block LLP, guilty of previously employing a lawyer who aided Robert Mueller's investigation of pro-Trump Russian election interference. On March 27, the target was WilmerHale, whose sins included hiring Robert Mueller himself. In some of the orders, Trump also accused the firms of being "partisan" in the clients they represented. As each new order arrived, lawyers began to realize the potentially profound implication: that a wide segment of the profession might be bullied into representing only Trump-approved clients and causes. For an administration already facing more than 100 lawsuits in its first 75 days, pressuring top law firms to avoid challenging Trump in court could reduce the legal risk to his policies. "If you can actually intimidate law firms into not litigating against your administration, that is hugely powerful – that will help you advance the rest of your agenda," David Lat, a former federal prosecutor and law firm associate who writes about the legal profession on his Original Jurisdiction substack, told USA TODAY. "It is like a boxing match where you are chopping off the arms of your opponent," Lat said. Three firms – Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale – have now sued, and each won a temporary restraining order suspending major portions of Trump's orders that judges said are likely illegal. But any hopes that the legal community might stand united in fighting the orders, which even many Republican and conservative lawyers have called blatantly unconstitutional, were extinguished when Paul Weiss cut a deal March 20 to get its order lifted, promising to devote $40 million worth of free legal work to projects both the firm and Trump support. Other firms started coming to Trump preemptively, negotiating to avert new orders that could have targeted them. The four agreements so far have pledged $340 million in free legal work for mutually-supported causes, often promising some of those causes would support "conservative ideals." The law firms that have sued say the measures violate a slew of constitutional rights, including the rights to speech, to freely associate, to petition the government, to have a lawyer, and to get due process. "Our country is based on the tradition that you can represent clients, you can represent unpopular clients, you can represent clients that are adverse to the interests of the people in the White House right now," Paul Clement, a former solicitor general from the George W. Bush administration and conservative legal superstar, said in a D.C. federal courthouse March 28. Clement was arguing that his client, WilmerHale, should get a temporary restraining order. "And, if you do a good job for your client, you're applauded for doing it and you're certainly not sanctioned by the government power, the highest official in the land," Clement added. The White House didn't respond to USA TODAY's request for comment, but Trump has repeatedly expressed glee at law firms cutting deals. "They're just saying, 'Where do I sign? Where do I sign?'" Trump said at a Women's history event March 26. The law firms that negotiated agreements, Paul Weiss, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and most recently on Wednesday, Milbank LLP, didn't respond to USA TODAY's requests for comment. In a widely-reported email to his firm on why he made a deal, Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp said it "was very likely" the firm couldn't survive a protracted fight with the administration. "We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court," Karp said in the email. "But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration." Trump memorandum also targets law firms Trump's executive orders targeting specific law firms aren't the only way in which he's gone after lawyers who challenge him. On March 22, he issued a memorandum directing his administration to seek sanctions and make recommendations on stripping away federal contracts and security clearances for lawyers and law firms "who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States." It's not clear what kinds of lawsuits that refers to, but critics fear it could mean any challenge to the president's policies. "Any suit that's filed against Trump's administration, Donald Trump will, by definition, believe is frivolous and vexatious," Chris Christie, a former federal prosecutor and Republican New Jersey governor, predicted in an interview on ABC's "This Week" March 23. "If (firms) continue to act like Paul Weiss did, and cave and be intimidated, well then we're going to have a much different legal system in this country," Christie added. Lawsuits against presidential actions are common across administrations, and Trump's administration already faces challenges alleging he has broken the law by firing federal workers without demonstrating cause, deporting alleged gang members without giving them a chance to make their case, cutting federal health funding, and more. In the wake of the president's memorandum, the Justice Department began "an immediate review of law firms who have participated in inappropriate activity and weaponized lawfare," department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre told USA TODAY in a statement. The results of that review have not yet been released. Why the executive orders hit firms hard Trump's executive orders use a multi-pronged approach to hamper a law firm's ability to do business – and there's plenty of evidence the firms fear it could succeed. The orders threaten the government contracts of not just the firms but also firm clients. The orders also strip lawyers of security clearances – a measure that limits lawyers' ability to represent certain clients – and ban them from federal government buildings. Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon, at a March 28 hearing, pondered if that would even include federal courthouses. There is also a potential subtext for law firms to fear: that existing and would-be clients will read into the orders that the law firms are each a persona non grata when it comes to working with the Trump administration. Before Paul Weiss made the deal with Trump to get the executive order against it rescinded, one of its clients, a criminal defendant who was facing federal foreign corruption charges, terminated the firm as defense counsel in response to the order, the firm said in a court filing. But the potential for damage extends beyond the law firms themselves, according to Leon. WilmerHale "faces more than economic harm – it faces crippling losses and its very survival is at stake," Leon wrote in his March 28 ruling granting WilmerHale a temporary restraining order. "The injuries to plaintiff here would be severe and would spill over to its clients and the justice system at large." Leon temporarily restrained most of Trump's executive order against WilmerHale, although not the portion revoking security clearances. He said legal precedent suggests Trump has especially strong authority when it comes to those clearances. Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie didn't ask for that provision to be temporarily restrained, although they are challenging it as well in their ongoing lawsuits. Leon issued the order after listening to WilmerHale lawyer Paul Clement argue Trump's action violated firm employees and clients' First Amendment rights to speak freely, to petition the courts for help, and to freely associate with each other. "The court's decision to block key provisions of the order vindicates our and our clients' foundational First Amendment rights," a WilmerHale spokesperson said. Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block have both created websites dedicated to their ongoing legal battles to fight the executive orders. "Part of what is so pernicious about this is that even if the law firms who are challenging these executive orders prevail in court, which they are likely to do, they will have put themselves through great expense and possibly lost clients for the foreseeable future," said Gregg Nunziata, who served as general counsel to Secretary of State Marco Rubio when Rubio was a Republican senator from Florida. Nunziata now heads the Society for the Rule of Law, a group of predominantly conservative lawyers focused on rule-of-law issues. Constitutional rights allegedly violated In addition to raising First Amendment arguments, the firms' lawsuits allege Trump violated a host of other constitutional provisions, such as the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Jenner & Block, for example, said the order hurts its "ability to represent its clients in connection with government-facing work" and undermines "the attorney-client relationship and clients' right to counsel of their choice." The firms that have sued also accuse Trump of denying them their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and to receive equal protection of the laws because Trump, they say, didn't give them a chance to defend themselves before punishing them and is unfairly singling them out. The administration is forcefully defending the orders in court, highlighting that each order not only complained about someone who had been employed or represented by the firm in question, but also that the firms in question allegedly discriminated on the basis of race in employment decisions – an apparent reference to affirmative action. "The Government has every right to use its procurement power to discourage such practices," Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson and Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle said in a Wednesday court filing in Perkins Coie's case. The government uses its procurement power to acquire goods and services, such as by hiring a law firm. "Using the executive power to advance social policy is very strongly supported," Lawson said at a March 28 court hearing in WilmerHale's case. The Justice Department is also arguing the lawsuits have been filed too early because agencies haven't issued guidance to implement Trump's orders yet. The role of law firms in the court system Major private law firms mostly represent clients who are able to pay high fees, but they also maintain "pro bono" practices in which they provide free legal work to clients in need. Private lawyers at big law firms, for instance, played a major role in litigation leading up to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision in which the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples across the U.S. While Democratic state attorneys general and nonprofits like the ACLU have also filed lawsuits challenging Trump policies such as deportations, experts say the loss of pro bono work from big law firms would reduce the number of policies that can be challenged in court. "States and public interest organizations have important roles to play," Lat said. "It is still hugely significant if you are taking a number of big firms off the table." The concern may not be limited to the law firms that have actually been targeted. Other firms could choose not to stick their necks out in challenging the administration lest they, too, face executive orders targeting their business. "There's nothing stopping the president, if they get away with this, also going after smaller firms, boutiques, public interest organizations," Daniel Ortner, an attorney at the free-speech-focused Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told USA TODAY. The orders have produced an outcry within the legal profession. By Saturday, about 1,700 former Justice Department employees signed a statement organized by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit, voicing their opposition. The American Bar Association and dozens of local bar associations signed a March 26 statement rejecting "the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways." USA TODAY unsuccessfully reached out to several conservative groups for an interview or statement on the lawfulness and appropriateness of Trump's orders targeting law firms, including the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Renewing America, and the America First Policy Institute. Spokespeople for Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley didn't respond to requests for comment. Asked by a reporter in the Oval Office March 21 how he would respond to critics who say the orders amount to coercion, the president appeared unconcerned. 'Well, the law firms all want to make deals," Trump said. Part of wider attack on courts? Alongside targeting law firms, Trump is also waging a bully-pulpit campaign against the judiciary. On March 18, he said in a Truth Social post that Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ruled against one of his deportation policies in a D.C. federal court, should be impeached, along with many other "Crooked Judges." That post prompted a rare public rebuke the same day from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said impeaching judges "is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision." Trump didn't back down from his impeachment call in an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham later that day, saying "these are judges that shouldn't be allowed." The call for impeachments and the orders targeting attorneys threaten the judiciary's role in the constitutional system of government, Nunziata believes. "The Trump administration is attacking the independence of the judiciary itself by threatening impeachments and otherwise trying to discredit the judiciary," he said. "Part of the people having control is the people being able to petition their government and say, 'Hey, government, you're wrong about this.' And lawyers play a critical role in ensuring that can happen," Kristy Parker, a former federal prosecutor who is now counsel at Protect Democracy, told USA TODAY. "So the mechanism here is targeting lawyers and law firms, but the real target is self-government." (This story has been updated to correct a misspelling/typo.)
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's crackdown on ‘Big Law': Retaliation or reform?
In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has exercised his executive authority to target some of the nation's most prestigious law firms, accusing them of undermining the legal system. The accusations are broad in scope, including the use of legal tactics to advance partisan politics, attacking political adversaries, and alleging that many of these 'Big Law' firms engage in 'unlawful discrimination' based on DEI hiring practices. In the presidential memorandum 'Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court,' the president ordered U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate every legal case that has come against the federal government in the last eight years. 'Lawyers and law firms play a vital role in ensuring that we live up to that standard as a Nation. Law firms should not favor any political party when it comes to choosing their clients. Firms also should not make decisions on whom to hire based on a person's political affiliation. To do otherwise is to deny some Americans an equal opportunity for our services while favoring others,' Trump posted on social media. 'Lawyers abandon the profession's highest ideals when they engage in partisan decision-making, and betray the ethical obligation to represent those who are unpopular or disfavored in a particular environment.' Given Trump's familiarity with legal battles, many are questioning whether the president's actions are being done to better serve the interests of the American people or are simply retaliation against law firms that have taken him to court. So far, two law firms have taken different actions since being targeted by Trump. After being accused in a presidential order of unethical behavior, explicitly mentioning the firm's hiring of attorney Mark Pomerantz, who worked with the Manhattan District Attorney's office in bringing criminal charges against Trump, global firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, ended up settling a deal with the White House. According to The Wall Street Journal, in 2023, Pomerantz believed Trump was guilty of serious crimes but ultimately resigned from the position 'after what he viewed was a rushed and inattentive examination of the case by the current district attorney, Alvin Bragg.' The firm's chairman, Brad Karp, met with Trump and a few of the president's closest advisers and, per an executive order, agreed to give $40 million worth of free legal work to administration causes, including fairness in the legal system, combating anti-semitism and aiding U.S. veterans. In response, more than 140 former Paul, Weiss attorneys signed a letter expressing their shame in the firm for what they described as a 'craven surrender' to Trump. 'We expected the firm to be a leader in standing up for the legal profession, the adversary system, and the right to counsel. Instead of a ringing defense of the values of democracy, we witnessed a craven surrender to, and thus complicity in, what is perhaps the gravest threat to the independence of the legal profession since at least the days of Sen. Joseph McCarthy,' the letter said. However, in an email to staff and lawyers last weekend, Karp said the deal with Trump was the best scenario given the pressure of losing clients over a strained relationship with the federal government, per Reuters. 'The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm,' Karp's letter said 'The Administration is not dictating what matters we take on, approving our matters, or anything like that,' he said. 'But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration.' Legal action is exactly what litigation powerhouse Perkins Coie took to combat Trump's executive order against the firm. Accused of damaging the U.S. legal system by undermining election laws and voter laws and working with Democratic figures such as Hillary Clinton and George Soros to do so, Perkins Coie filed a complaint in court accusing Trump's order of being a bullying tactic. 'Perkins Coie's ability to represent the interests of its clients — and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all — are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied,' the filing said. 'The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.' U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell sided with the firm and blocked any penalties, including losing access to government buildings and security clearances and ending all of the firm's existing contracts with government clients, made in the executive order. Utah attorney Greg Skordas said the executive orders 'present a Hobsen's choice for the law firms.' 'Either lose thousands of dollars in fees and lost revenue fighting an illegal order or settle for an exorbitant amount to keep your doors open and the firm running,' he said. 'It's lose-lose for any law firm and Trump knows that. He also knows that these executive orders may eventually have the desired effect of causing any law firm to think long and hard about taking on litigation against him.' Skordas added that its 'made it so that certain governmental agencies can't or won't engage with them, costing them tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Although these executive orders are likely to eventually be set aside by a court, that process can take months or longer to resolve and will be very costly. In the meantime, law firms that are the subject of these executive orders are hemorrhaging clients and of course, income.' The latest law firm to become involved in the White House's retribution battle is Jenner & Block, an international law firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The executive order accused the firm of misusing its pro bono work for a political agenda that favors left-leaning policies, describing it as 'partisan lawfare' — similar to the accusations made against other firms that Trump has targeted. What made this order unique from the others was its target on attorney Andrew Weissmann, who served under former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Trump's alleged ties to Russia during the 2016 presidential election. The order said, 'The numerous reports of Weissmann's dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner's values and priorities.' Though Trump was never charged due to lack of sufficient evidence, Weissmann has said previously that he would have 'subpoenaed Trump and definitively stated that the former president obstructed justice,' per The Wall Street Journal. During the executive order's signing on Tuesday, Trump called Weissman a 'bad guy' after receiving clarification that Weissmann's involvement with the firm is one of the many reasons the executive order was warranted. Though it is uncertain how the law firm will respond, a spokesperson for Jenner & Block said, 'We have been named in an Executive Order similar to one which has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court. We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies,' per The Wall Street Journal.
Washington Post
22-03-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Law firm Paul Weiss agrees to deal with Trump, prompting criticism
Paul Weiss, a prominent law firm that has often represented Democratic clients and causes, is facing widespread criticism online from the legal community after agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services to the Trump administration to avoid a retaliatory executive order targeting its lawyers and clients. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump issued an executive action that would have stripped the firm — whose full name is Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP — of its security clearances, limited access of its lawyers to government buildings and rescinded some government contracts with its clients. He asserted that the firm had engaged in 'harmful activity' and 'blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States.' Trump specifically cited the work of former Paul Weiss partner Mark Pomerantz, who helped lead the Manhattan criminal investigation into hush money payments by Trump. But Thursday night, Trump said on Truth Social that he 'agreed to withdraw' the action after meeting with the firm's chairman, Brad Karp. The firm has agreed to review its hiring practices and renounce any diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. It also will support initiatives such as 'fairness in the Justice System' and the president's task force to combat antisemitism, Trump said. Some former attorneys, lawyers and legal scholars expressed broad disappointment at the firm and posted scathing rebukes of the deal, which they described as a blow to the independence of big law firms and acquiescence to the Trump administration. 'Paul Weiss used to be a law firm to be admired and respected. No more,' said Norman Ornstein, a senior fellow emeritus at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute and frequent Trump critic, calling the agreement 'a stain on the legal profession.' 'If I were a lawyer at @PaulWeissLLP I don't know how I would take myself seriously. This is absolutely shameful and spineless behavior. Pledging legal services to broadly support any administration's agenda is gross, but especially in this very protection racket way,' wrote Ari Cohn, a Chicago-based attorney who specializes in First Amendment and other speech-related issues. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, also criticized the move, saying on X, 'With this administration, there will be no legitimate legal system and no need for actual lawyers.' Trump's executive action retaliating against Paul Weiss was one of several he's issued that target major law firms that represented or employed people he sees as his enemies. But the agreement by Paul Weiss marked a big concession by a legal firm to the Trump administration in response to perceived wrongdoings. The White House has not yet released the full details of the agreement that would rescind Trump's earlier action. In a statement that Trump included in his social media post, Karp said, 'We are gratified that the President has agreed to withdraw the Executive Order concerning Paul, Weiss. We look forward to an engaged and constructive relationship with the President and his Administration.' A spokesperson for Paul Weiss did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Earlier this month, the president issued a similar executive order against Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016. Last month, Trump suspended security clearances for the attorneys at Covington & Burling, which provided legal counsel to former special counsel Jack Smith who led federal prosecutions against Trump over his alleged retention of classified documents and attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert and law professor at Washington University, described Trump's initial orders as 'an attack on the legal profession and on the independence of lawyers and law firms.' 'There's every reason to think that the Trump administration will respond to Paul Weiss's apparent capitulation by, you know, seeing who's next in line, which law firm is next in line to target, picking them off one by one,' she said. 'I would predict that President Trump will feel emboldened by Paul Weiss's response in a way that he did not feel emboldened by, I would argue, Perkins Coie's response.' During comments to the media on Friday, Trump rejected allegations that his actions against Paul Weiss and other law firms amount to coercion. 'The law firms all want to make deals,' Trump said from the Oval Office. The president claimed without evidence that the firms 'violently' pursued him for years. 'The law firms you're talking about, they're not babies,' Trump said. 'They're very sophisticated people.' Cat Zakrzewski contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Capitulation to Trump spells inordinate danger
We all learned long ago, perhaps on the playground, that giving in to a bully only makes things worse. That is why it is shocking to see capitulation on the part of those being illegally bullied by President Trump. This will only embolden him. On Thursday and Friday, a law firm and Columbia University surrendered. Trump said Thursday that the national law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP had reached a settlement with his administration. A week earlier, the president had issued an executive order, 'Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.' that revoked security clearances for all lawyers in the firm, ended its government contracts with the firm and limited access to government buildings for those working at the firm. Why was Paul, Weiss targeted? The primary reason given was that one of its former partners worked in the Manhattan district attorney's office and was part of the legal team that investigated Trump in the case that later resulted in his prosecution and conviction on business fraud charges. Also, the executive order says that a Paul, Weiss lawyer represented clients suing Jan. 6, 2021, rioters. This is nothing but blatantly illegal retribution. A federal judge in issuing a temporary restraining order against a similar Trump executive order directed at the law firm Perkins Coie, which had represented Hillary Clinton, said that action was an 'extreme, unprecedented effort' and that it 'casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession.' The law is clear that lawyers are not to be punished for representing clients or for their lawful advocacy. But Trump on Thursday said he was withdrawing the Paul, Weiss executive order and in exchange the firm would contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed, including 'the President's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.' This obviously only emboldens the president to target more law firms in shakedowns. As of Friday, Columbia University has agreed to the same type of capitulation. On March 13, the Trump administration announced it was cutting off $400 million in federal money to Columbia citing 'continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students,' especially as to pro-Palestinian protests that occurred last spring. Such a cut in federal funds is illegal in many ways. The federal government's claim was that Columbia violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in not adequately responding to a hostile environment against Jewish students. But Title VI requires 'an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing' of failure to comply with the statute, as well as 'a full written report' submitted to House and Senate committees at least 30 days before a cutoff takes effect. There was no hearing, no finding and no report by the Trump administration. The legal standard under Title VI is that a recipient of federal funds must not show 'deliberate indifference' to a hostile environment. Not only was there no such finding, given Columbia's ultimately aggressive response to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations last spring, it is not plausible to say it was 'deliberately indifferent.' Also, as the Department of Education previously has made clear, a university cannot be required to stop speech that is protected by the 1st Amendment. That would be unconstitutional. Yet Columbia is being punished for adhering to that requirement. Let's say Columbia had been found to have violated Title VI. The law says that the remedy, cutting off funds, must be 'limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which noncompliance has been so found.' Instead, the Trump administration apparently planned to cut off funds affecting a broad swath of the university's programs, including the medical school, which was far removed from the protests. Columbia had every reason to file suit, challenging the order. Instead, it conceded, amid claims that there was overlap between what Trump wanted and reforms it was already considering. The Trump administration's demands included changing Columbia's admissions criteria, establishing rules related to protest that could restrict student speech and putting Columbia's Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department under academic 'receivership' for at least five years, taking control away from its faculty, a potential violation of academic freedom. Choosing to make a deal rather than fight the president is understandable. Litigation is expensive and can be protracted. The president's attack could seriously damage Paul, Weiss and Columbia; they want their nightmare to be over and giving in to the president seems the fastest way to accomplish that. But both the university and law firm have substantial resources to challenge the Trump administration challenges, and their capitulation will have enormous costs for other schools and law firms, some with fewer resources, as the president determines his next targets. Trump has taken a page from the playbook of all dictators: govern by fear and intimidation. If democracy is to survive, though, it must be because the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the Trump administration are stopped. That requires that those targeted fight back. Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of the UC Berkeley Law School. His latest book is 'No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.'
