Latest news with #constitutionalLaw
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey
A federal judge found the Trump administration's order against Susman Godfrey unconstitutional. Trump has so far lost all four legal challenges brought against his orders targeting Big Law firms. The rulings may be appealed to the Appeals Court. Any subsequent appeal goes to the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump faced another legal loss on Friday after a District Court judge slapped down his executive order against the Big Law firm Susman Godfrey. In her ruling, Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the order against Susman Godfrey "was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed." "In the ensuing months, 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," AliKhan wrote. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Three other federal judges have already found similar executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale unconstitutional. AliKhan's ruling in the Susman Godfrey case marks a 0-4 record for the Trump administration in legal challenges regarding his executive orders targeting Big Law firms. Susman Godfrey said in a statement that the court's ruling "is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation." "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional," the firm's statement continued. "Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." Harrison Fields, principal White House deputy press secretary, told Business Insider in a statement that the White House opposes Judge AliKhan's ruling. "The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President," Fields said. "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." The federal government can appeal AliKhan's ruling, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. Fields did not immediately respond to Business Insider when asked if the government would appeal Judge AliKhan's decision. Judge AliKhan's ruling represents a major legal victory for the firms that have challenged the president's executive orders in court. While some other Big Law firms chose instead to strike deals with the administration to avoid or reverse punitive executive actions against them — drawing sharp criticism from industry insiders and a spate of resignations among associates and some partners — Business Insider previously reported that Susman Godfrey's decision to fight back in court took just two hours. In the original April 9 executive order against Susman Godfrey, the Trump administration accused the firm of "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections." Judge AliKahn had granted the firm a temporary restraining order on April 15, preventing enforcement of the order against Susman Godfrey pending further proceedings. In issuing her order granting the TRO, the judge said she believed "the framers of our constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," according to The American Lawyer. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its suit against Fox News after the 2020 election, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement, and The New York Times in the publication's copyright suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which has not yet reached a conclusion. Read the original article on Business Insider
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.
Associated Press
27-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. The Susman Godfrey firm suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, 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,' AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports. ___
CBS News
27-06-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Judge finds Trump executive order punishing Susman Godfrey law firm unconstitutional
Washington — A federal judge on Friday struck down President Trump's executive order that sought to punish the law firm Susman Godfrey, ruling that it is unconstitutional and blocking the administration from enforcing it. The decision from U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan caps an unbroken streak of victories for the four major law firms that were targeted by Mr. Trump as part of his efforts to go after his perceived enemies and chose to challenge his directives in court, rather than commit millions of dollars in free legal services, as nine other firms have done. The president's executive orders aimed to sanction the firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and Susman Godfrey by going after their clients, access to federal buildings and employees, and security clearances held by their employees. Each of the four firms filed lawsuits arguing the orders violated the Constitution, and four different judges have skipped trials and ruled in their favor. The Trump administration has not appealed any of the decisions so far. AliKhan said in her ruling that Mr. Trump's executive order regarding Susman Godfrey violated the First and Fifth Amendments. The order, she said, "is unconstitutional from beginning to end." "Here, the Order goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States," the judge wrote. "The Order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law." Mr. Trump signed the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey in April, which claimed that the firm "spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections." The firm, which has 350 employees, represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News. The suit was filed in response to unfounded claims aired by the network that Dominion helped rig the 2020 election against Mr. Trump. Fox News and Dominion reached a $787 million settlement agreement in 2023. The president's executive orders against the four law firms all sought to inflict similar harms, including by suspending active security clearances held by their employees, requiring government contractors to disclose any business with the firms and limiting government employees from engaging with their employees. The orders also restricted their access to federal buildings. Susman Godfrey, like the three others, sued the Trump administration shortly after the executive order was signed, arguing that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Lawyers for the firm said Mr. Trump's directive was "unprecedented and unconstitutional" and part of "an express campaign of retaliation for representing clients and causes he disfavors or employing lawyers he dislikes." Indeed, Mr. Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie went after the firm for its representation of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and its hiring of a research firm that retained former British spy Christopher Steele, who produced the infamous "Steele Dossier." His attempts to punish Jenner & Block and WilmerHale both invoked lawyers who worked on the Justice Department's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. At WilmerHale, that was Robert Mueller, the special counsel who led the probe, and two lawyers who worked on his team, Aaron Zebley and James Quarles. For Jenner & Block, the lawyer was Andrew Weissmann, who also worked on the Russian meddling case. Mueller, Quarles and Weissmann each left their firms several years ago. But the firms have also been involved in litigation challenging policies rolled out during Mr. Trump's second term. WilmerHale is representing a group of inspectors general who were fired by the president at the start of his administration, and Jenner & Block is involved in a challenge Mr. Trump's efforts to withhold federal funds from medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to young people. Susman Godfrey continues to represent Dominion in defamation lawsuits arising out of baseless claims related to the 2020 election, including against Rudy Giuliani, conservative lawyer Sidney Powell and Newsmax. AliKhan, who was appointed to the district court by former President Joe Biden, had granted Susman Godfrey temporary relief in April and blocked the administration from enforcing parts of the executive order against the firm. Her final decision in favor of Susman Godfrey was not a surprise, since she had said at a hearing then that the executive order was "based on a personal vendetta" against the firm. "The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," she said in April. While the four firms have each successfully had the executive orders invalidated, other major firms have decided to enter into agreements with the president, seemingly to avoid being targeted themselves. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison was threatened with punishment in March, but Mr. Trump rescinded his executive order focusing on the firm after it committed to providing $40 million in pro bono work to support the administration's policies. Since then, eight more firms have reached deals with the White House that pledges of between $100 million and $125 million in free legal services. Mr. Trump has suggested using the law firms' promise of pro bono work to help the U.S. in trade negotiations over tariffs.
Malay Mail
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
In challenge against Malaysia's judge appointment process, lawyer seeks Federal Court ruling on 16 constitutional questions
KUALA LUMPUR, June 25 — A lawyer is now seeking the High Court's nod for him to bring 16 questions on constitutional law to the Federal Court, as part of his court bid to challenge the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and its role in recommending candidates to be appointed as judges in Malaysia. Lawyer Datuk Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim filed his application at the High Court this afternoon, asking the High Court to order that the 16 questions be referred to the Federal Court to be decided there. He also wants the High Court to stay his main lawsuit until the Federal Court decides on the 16 constitutional questions. When contacted by Malay Mail, lawyer Daniel Annamalai confirmed that his client Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan had filed the application to refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court. At the time of writing, the High Court is still scheduled to hear on July 16 Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan's main lawsuit, where he is seeking to invalidate both the JAC and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (JAC Act 2009). In his main lawsuit, he also wants the court to order the prime minister to follow the constitutional process for the appointment of judges without what he described as 'interference' by the JAC. Currently, the JAC filters and selects suitable candidates before recommending them to the prime minister. The prime minister can either accept the JAC's recommendations or ask the JAC to give alternative names. Civil society has noted that the prime minister is not required to say why he rejected the JAC's recommendations, and there are also no limits to the number of times he can reject the recommended names. Under the Federal Constitution's Article 122B, the prime minister then gives advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who then appoints the top four judges (including the Chief Justice) and judges (at the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court). What do the 16 constitutional questions cover? The 16 constitutional questions mainly cover areas such as whether the JAC Act 2009 is unconstitutional. The questions also cover issues such as whether the prime minister's role in the process of appointment of judges had been reduced or become meaningless because of the JAC. The 16 questions include: whether the JAC Act 2009 is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution's Article 122B; whether appointments of judges made according to the JAC Act can be challenged as invalid, if the JAC Act is found to be unconstitutional; whether the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's role and the prime minister's role under Article 122B(1) are unconstitutionally diminished by JAC's recommendations; whether the prime minister's constitutional role in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is made 'redundant or meaningless' by the JAC's statutory mechanisms; and whether the appointment of judges upon an 'unelected' JAC's recommendation infringes the Federal Constitution's Article 4(1), 8(1) and 122B. In an affidavit filed today in court to support his application on the 16 constitutional questions, Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan argued that these questions are 'not academic or hypothetical'. He claimed the questions directly affect the validity of all appointments of judges made in Malaysia since 2009. He argued that Article 122B gives the prime minister 'absolute discretion' to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the appointment of judges. He also said the Federal Court as the Federal Constitution's guardian should decide on the 16 constitutional questions — which include whether the JAC Act is constitutional and consistent with Article 122B.
