Latest news with #WilmerHale
Boston Globe
8 hours ago
- Business
- Boston Globe
A federal judge delivered a beatdown to the Trump administration, in support of WilmerHale. Here's how.
Welch would be pleased to see the beatdown that Judge Richard Leon delivered against the administration last week — and not just because Leon ruled in favor of Welch's old firm. Welch would also appreciate the emphatic tone of Leon's message, with more than 20 exclamation points across a 73-page order. Advertisement It's and its roughly 2,400 employees that hangs in the balance. The fundamentals of the country's entire legal system could be at risk. In recent months, President Trump issued several executive orders threatening prominent law firms because of their work on behalf of immigrants and elections reform, or for hiring a lawyer or two deemed an enemy by the president, among other supposed sins. In Trump's threats Advertisement Nine Big Law firms quickly caved, settling with Trump and agreeing to provide legal services to causes blessed by the president, worth around $1 billion in total. Dozens more have stayed quiet, on the sidelines. But four firms in Trump's crosshairs chose to fight. And it has not gone well for the president. With Leon's vigorous torpedoing of Trump's executive order against WilmerHale on the books, the administration's record is now 0-3 against Big Law in the courts — with the fate of Here are a few things to know about Judge Leon. He often wears a bow tie, a sartorial choice much less common now than in Welch's day. Leon is a Natick native, went to college appointed him to the bench. He has a bit of a reputation for He did not disappoint, on any of these counts, with his May 27 decision. Right at the outset, Leon explained why he was striking down the entirety of Trump's WilmerHale order as unconstitutional. 'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases,' Leon wrote. 'Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!' Advertisement On the administration's assertion that WilmerHale's financial injuries are speculative in nature, Leon said: 'Please — that dog won't hunt!" On whether Trump's order improperly infringes on WilmerHale's freedom of speech: 'The Order goes on to impose a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!' And on whether the order violates the rights of WilmerHale clients to pick their counsel: 'The intended and actual effect of the Order's sanctions is to drive away clients from WilmerHale!' Then there was the tasty footnote on page 14, in which Leon describes Trump's March 27 executive order against WilmerHale as akin to a gumbo, in which all the ingredients should be considered together as one dish. 'As explained in this Memorandum Opinion,' Leon concludes, 'this gumbo gives the court heartburn.' Tell us how you really feel, Judge Leon! Both sides were far more subdued when asked for comment. After all, Leon's decision could still be appealed. WilmerHale offered a brief statement, sans exclamation points, saying the decision 'strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients. We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients.' Meanwhile, Trump is a fan of explanation points, judging by his social media posts. But White House spokesman Harrison Fields opted against using one. Instead, he focused on one aspect of the case involving Trump's attempt to revoke WilmerHale's security clearances: 'The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President. Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority.' Advertisement As president of the Mass. Bar Association, Victoria Santoro has been rallying the state's law groups to protest Trump's executive-order barrage. She notes that judges of all political backgrounds and jurisdictions have blocked a wide range of Trump's executive orders, not just those involving the legal profession. To Santoro, the trend speaks to Trump's excessive and unconstitutional use of EOs. But will law firms feel safe from future Trump attacks, free to take on clients and causes unpopular with the president, or a lawyer with ties to his enemies? Maybe not. Boston College law professor Cheryl Bratt calls Leon's decision necessary, but she's not sure if it's sufficient. Translation: It will probably take more than one judge's opinion, or even three, to give law firms the comfort to know they won't end up on Trump's hit list. The reluctance is understandable. The harm is real: Some clients were already starting to reconsider WilmerHale, for example, and two of its lawyers had their security clearances suspended. Bratt incorporated the Trump vs. Big Law saga into her classes this spring; one way to talk about the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution is to show how they can get threatened in real time. As a WilmerHale alum, Bratt paid particular attention. The legacy of Joseph Welch looms large there; she was told about Welch's stand against McCarthyism during her employee orientation, and the firm's website recounts that history with pride. WilmerHale's current fight, led by Advertisement As granddaughter Nancy Welch watches the WilmerHale-Trump fight play out from her Maryland home, she is reminded of a lesson that Welch passed along to her family: He saw the rule of law, delivered fairly and without favor, as the single most powerful antidote to fear. It was a fearful time in the 1950s for the country, she said in an email, like it is right now. It's a safe bet Joseph Welch would be proud to read Leon's decision — and so, one imagines, would the Founding Fathers! Jon Chesto can be reached at
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Law firms targeted by Trump are on a winning streak against him
Federal courts have handed a series of resounding victories to the law firms fighting back against President Trump's targeted executive orders, a sharp rebuke of his retribution campaign against them. Three judges, appointed by presidents of both political parties, forcefully struck down orders this month aimed at limiting government contracts and access for Big Law firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block. The early wins underscore the legal system's ability to withstand the Trump administration's pressure test, and have led some in the legal community to take shots at other elite firms that struck deals with Trump to avoid punishments. 'This is a moment for courage, not capitulation,' said Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor who authored papers calling Trump's orders retaliatory and the law firm deals unenforceable. 'The firms that showed courage are being vindicated, and the ones who have capitulated have another chance to show courage,' he continued. 'So, what are they going to do?' The judges ruling in favor of the law firms all deemed the administration's actions as illegal. Still, that might not make firms that chose to strike deals with Trump regret their actions. Those firms likely anticipated they could win in court, but decided it was in their better business interests to settle with Trump, said Rachel Cohen, a lawyer who made waves after she offered a conditional resignation from Skadden contingent on whether leadership came up with 'a satisfactory response to the current moment.' Skadden ended up reaching a deal with the Trump administration, and Cohen no longer works there. Cohen argued Trump has effectively won in getting a number of law firms to offer it concessions even though the administration had a weak case in court. 'The very fact that we're saying, 'What does it mean that the Trump administration has lost all of these legal battles' shows that they kind of won, right?' Cohen told The Hill. The three firms that won in court all have ties to people who are political opponents of Trump or who are otherwise seen as the president as enemies. Perkins Coie had long drawn Trump's ire for advising Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign and working with an opposition research firm tied to the discredited Steele dossier. WilmerHale had employed special counsel Robert Mueller before and after his stint investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, while Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prominent Trump critic and legal pundit who worked on Mueller's probe. A fourth firm fighting back, Susman Godfrey, is awaiting a ruling on a Trump executive order targeting it for punishment. The firm helped Dominion Voting Systems secure a multimillion-dollar settlement against Fox News after the 2020 election. The Trump administration has argued that it's within the president's discretion to decide who to trust with the nation's secrets, a reference to its decision to revoke the security clearances of the firms' employees. The orders were designed to assuage Trump's concerns about the law firms, the government has said. But judges haven't bought it. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said Tuesday in his ruling for WilmerHale that the president's orders against several of the nation's top law firms constituted a direct challenge to the independent judiciary and bar that are the 'cornerstone' of America's justice system. To let the orders stand would be 'unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers,' the judge wrote in a 73-page opinion spattered with exclamation points. Before that, U.S. District Judge John Bates, another Bush appointee, slammed Trump's order against Jenner & Block as an effort to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like,' while U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Obama, said Trump's order against Perkins Coie 'draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'' Trump's deal with Paul, Weiss was an earthquake in the legal world, and signaled that a number of powerful firms would be willing to do deals with Trump out of economic prudence. Trump revoked the executive order targeting Paul, Weiss after it agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to support administration initiatives and other perks. 'As soon as Paul, Weiss made their deal, it was very clear to me that the industry wasn't going to act collectively and that they were going to splinter,' Cohen said. Soon after, Skadden struck its own deal with the president, agreeing to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services 'during the Trump administration and beyond.' Trump had not signed an order aimed at Skadden, though the administration signaled that additional law firms could come under fire. At least seven other firms entered agreements with Trump to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work, despite no executive orders issued against them. 'There is a different motivation beyond 'Would I be able to win in court?' that is behind why these deals were entered into in the first place,' said Cohen. But Koh, the law professor, argued that it's not too late for the other firms to change course. In his essay in the law and policy journal Just Security, he contended that the agreements are unenforceable contracts. He offered a hypothetical: If you enter a contract to give someone a million dollars because they put a gun to your head, but then a court says it was illegal to put a gun to your head, would you still pay the million dollars? 'Right now, they are prisoners of handcuffs of their own making,' Koh said of the law firms. 'It's all in their mind — that's what these cases tell you. 'Whatever was their explanation for why they caved the first time, those justifications are gone,' he continued. 'They should start doing the right thing now; they have a second chance to do the right thing, and they should take it.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
18 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
Law firms targeted by Trump are on a winning streak against him
Federal courts have handed a series of resounding victories to the law firms fighting back against President Trump's targeted executive orders, a sharp rebuke of his retribution campaign against them. Three judges, appointed by presidents of both political parties, forcefully struck down orders this month aimed at limiting government contracts and access for Big Law firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block. The early wins underscore the legal system's ability to withstand the Trump administration's pressure test, and have led some in the legal community to take shots at other elite firms that struck deals with Trump to avoid punishments. 'This is a moment for courage, not capitulation,' said Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor who authored papers calling Trump's orders retaliatory and the law firm deals unenforceable. 'The firms that showed courage are being vindicated, and the ones who have capitulated have another chance to show courage,' he continued. 'So, what are they going to do?' The judges ruling in favor of the law firms all deemed the administration's actions as illegal. Still, that might not make firms that chose to strike deals with Trump regret their actions. Those firms likely anticipated they could win in court, but decided it was in their better business interests to settle with Trump, said Rachel Cohen, a lawyer who made waves after she offered a conditional resignation from Skadden contingent on whether leadership came up with 'a satisfactory response to the current moment.' Skadden ended up reaching a deal with the Trump administration, and Cohen no longer works there. Cohen argued Trump has effectively won in getting a number of law firms to offer it concessions even though the administration had a weak case in court. 'The very fact that we're saying, 'What does it mean that the Trump administration has lost all of these legal battles' shows that they kind of won, right?' Cohen told The Hill. The three firms that won in court all have ties to people who are political opponents of Trump or who are otherwise seen as the president as enemies. Perkins Coie had long drawn Trump's ire for advising Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign and working with an opposition research firm tied to the discredited Steele dossier. WilmerHale had employed special counsel Robert Mueller before and after his stint investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, while Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prominent Trump critic and legal pundit who worked on Mueller's probe. A fourth firm fighting back, Susman Godfrey, is awaiting a ruling on a Trump executive order targeting it for punishment. The firm helped Dominion Voting Systems secure a multimillion-dollar settlement against Fox News after the 2020 election. The Trump administration has argued that it's within the president's discretion to decide who to trust with the nation's secrets, a reference to its decision to revoke the security clearances of the firms' employees. The orders were designed to assuage Trump's concerns about the law firms, the government has said. But judges haven't bought it. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said Tuesday in his ruling for WilmerHale that the president's orders against several of the nation's top law firms constituted a direct challenge to the independent judiciary and bar that are the 'cornerstone' of America's justice system. To let the orders stand would be 'unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers,' the judge wrote in a 73-page opinion spattered with exclamation points. Before that, U.S. District Judge John Bates, another Bush appointee, slammed Trump's order against Jenner & Block as an effort to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like,' while U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Obama, said Trump's order against Perkins Coie 'draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'' Trump's deal with Paul, Weiss was an earthquake in the legal world, and signaled that a number of powerful firms would be willing to do deals with Trump out of economic prudence. Trump revoked the executive order targeting Paul, Weiss after it agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to support administration initiatives and other perks. 'As soon as Paul, Weiss made their deal, it was very clear to me that the industry wasn't going to act collectively and that they were going to splinter,' Cohen said. Soon after, Skadden struck its own deal with the president, agreeing to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services 'during the Trump administration and beyond.' Trump had not signed an order aimed at Skadden, though the administration signaled that additional law firms could come under fire. At least seven other firms entered agreements with Trump to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work, despite no executive orders issued against them. 'There is a different motivation beyond 'Would I be able to win in court?' that is behind why these deals were entered into in the first place,' said Cohen. But Koh, the law professor, argued that it's not too late for the other firms to change course. In his essay in the law and policy journal Just Security, he contended that the agreements are unenforceable contracts. He offered a hypothetical: If you enter a contract to give someone a million dollars because they put a gun to your head, but then a court says it was illegal to put a gun to your head, would you still pay the million dollars? 'Right now, they are prisoners of handcuffs of their own making,' Koh said of the law firms. 'It's all in their mind — that's what these cases tell you. 'Whatever was their explanation for why they caved the first time, those justifications are gone,' he continued. 'They should start doing the right thing now; they have a second chance to do the right thing, and they should take it.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Trump Had His Executive Order Called "Unconstitutional" AND One Of His Own Moves Used Against Him In One Fell Swoop
A certain judge isn't going to stand for this type of nonsense anymore!!!!!!!!! One of President Donald Trump's executive orders, targeting law firms he doesn't like for incredibly petty reasons, was struck down Tuesday by Richard Leon, a U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia. In addition to calling Trump's order 'unconstitutional,' Leon's 73-page opinion utilized a specific type of punctuation that Trump frequently uses himself: a crap-load of exclamation points. Leon's opinion included a total of 26 exclamation marks (plus one more in a quotation of a comment by Trump). It's rare to see a judge make such use of the exclamation mark, an expression of strong emotion that legal writing experts discourage. Perhaps Leon's usage was an attempt to communicate with Trump in a way the president could actually understand. Related: 18 Major Global Events That American Media Is Ignoring Right Now, And Why They Actually Matter To Us Related: "MAGAs Are The Dumbest People On This Planet": 26 Tweets About The Sad State Of Politics This Week Some highlights from the opinion include Leon describing the Trump administration's arguments in court as 'absurd!' and responding to one of the government's requests with an exasperated 'Please!' At one point, Leon memorably writes: 'The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!' Since returning to the White House, Trump has targeted several law firms that either refused to represent him or were associated with people he doesn't like by suspending their attorneys' security clearances and barring their employees from federal buildings. In March, he aimed his ire at the law firm WilmerHale because it had hired former special counsel Robert Mueller, who oversaw the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation. WilmerHale quickly fired back by suing the Trump administration in an attempt to block the order, stating that it is 'a plainly unlawful attack on the bedrock principles of our nation's legal system—our clients' right to counsel and the First Amendment.' Leon ruled in WilmerHale's favor Tuesday, the third time this month that a federal judge in Washington has found Trump's attacks on law firms unconstitutional. Leon even took the time to explain the fundamentals of democracy to Trump in his ruling — and it's sassy! '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! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!' This article originally appeared in HuffPost. Also in In the News: An Ad Against Far-Right Voters Is Going Viral For Being Both Terrifying And (Kinda) Accurate Also in In the News: This Republican Congressman Decided A Nap Was More Important Than Millions Of People Losing Their Medicaid, And The Photos Are Infuriating Also in In the News: A Clip Of Donald Trump Getting Angry After Being Fact-Checked Is Going Mega Viral, And It Sums Up His Entire Presidency In A Nutshell
Buzz Feed
3 days ago
- Business
- Buzz Feed
Judge Uses 26 Exclamation Marks To Strike Down Trump
A certain judge isn't going to stand for this type of nonsense anymore!!!!!!!!! One of President Donald Trump 's executive orders, targeting law firms he doesn't like for incredibly petty reasons, was struck down Tuesday by Richard Leon, a U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia. In addition to calling Trump's order 'unconstitutional,' Leon's 73-page opinion utilized a specific type of punctuation that Trump frequently uses himself: a crap-load of exclamation points. Leon's opinion included a total of 26 exclamation marks (plus one more in a quotation of a comment by Trump). It's rare to see a judge make such use of the exclamation mark, an expression of strong emotion that legal writing experts discourage. Perhaps Leon's usage was an attempt to communicate with Trump in a way the president could actually understand. Some highlights from the opinion include Leon describing the Trump administration's arguments in court as 'absurd!' and responding to one of the government's requests with an exasperated 'Please!' At one point, Leon memorably writes: 'The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!' Since returning to the White House, Trump has targeted several law firms that either refused to represent him or were associated with people he doesn't like by suspending their attorneys' security clearances and barring their employees from federal buildings. In March, he aimed his ire at the law firm WilmerHale because it had hired former special counsel Robert Mueller, who oversaw the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation. WilmerHale quickly fired back by suing the Trump administration in an attempt to block the order, stating that it is 'a plainly unlawful attack on the bedrock principles of our nation's legal system—our clients' right to counsel and the First Amendment.' Leon ruled in WilmerHale's favor Tuesday, the third time this month that a federal judge in Washington has found Trump's attacks on law firms unconstitutional. Leon even took the time to explain the fundamentals of democracy to Trump in his ruling — and it's sassy! '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! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!'
