Latest news with #executiveorders
Yahoo
6 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.
E&E News
2 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
Trump's moves to speed energy projects could slow them
Brandon Tuck got a lot of calls when President Donald Trump began his drive to 'unleash' American energy this year. The Houston lawyer guides construction on big projects like pipelines. Clients rejoiced that 'the seas had parted' after Trump's barrage of executive orders and declaration of an energy emergency. But the waters, he would tell them, were still pretty treacherous. 'It's a trap for the unwary,' Tuck said in an interview. 'You might have your permit in six months if you use that emergency authority, but you might lose it in a year or two.' Advertisement That emergency authority is one in a suite of tools Trump has offered to fossil fuel companies to get permits faster and, therefore, build faster. But Tuck and others like him are warning that those tools can't speed up projects as much as backers might hope. In fact, Trump's moves could backfire, leaving projects tied up in court for years. People who shepherd big energy projects say shortcutting reviews, firing bureaucrats and demolishing well-established processes is not the way to make such problems go away. Reviews done too quickly can invite errors that opponents seize on in court. Permit backlogs can grow when regulatory agencies are short-staffed. And blowing up longstanding practices can leave developers without landmarks to navigate. The reality is that, for now, not much in the U.S. government has changed outside of Trump's executive branch. Congress hasn't repealed the environmental laws that guide permitting and set the parameters for environmental analysis. Lawmakers are weighing changes to pipeline permitting and the National Environmental Policy Act in the Republicans' party-line 'megabill,' but weeks of legislative haggling remain, if not more. A Thursday ruling by the Supreme Court limited the scope of environmental reviews. But agencies will still be required to thoroughly examine the direct effects of energy projects. For now, judges are mostly working with the same statutes and case law they've used for decades when they consider environmental challenges to major projects. 'I wish I could point to something that the federal administration has done to speed up permitting,' said Jennifer Jeffers, who guides projects for clients of the Allen Matkins law firm in San Francisco, in an email exchange. 'But so far most, if not all, of the administration's efforts on the environmental front have been to dismantle agencies and eliminate federal jurisdictional oversight.' Even if it is intended to speed up permitting, she said, that dismantling and eliminating will likely lead to delays, uncertainty and increased costs for developers. But some experts who work with the fossil fuel industry aren't worried about unintended consequences. Jason Hill, a partner with the Holland & Knight law firm in Houston who served at the Interior Department in Trump's first term, says he doesn't expect the current administration to cut back on scientific analysis of projects. Instead, he said, it will light a fire under regulatory officials in Washington to make decisions. That's what they did in Trump's first term, Hill said, to great effect. 'I haven't seen any indication from my interactions with the government that they're doing things any different or any less rigorous than they always have,' Hill said. And even if they do complicate projects at first, Trump's actions will improve permitting in the long run, said Tom Pyle, president of the conservative Institute for Energy Research think tank. But that's not enough. To make permanent changes, he said, Congress needs to improve the process. 'It all points back to permitting,' he said. The American Petroleum Institute, a major oil and gas trade association, offered similar sentiments, saying in an emailed statement that 'durable reform' is needed for the federal permitting system. But it's far from clear what will reach Trump's desk. The Senate is still working on its version. It's not certain that the full Senate will agree to those provisions. Senators might not even be allowed to because, to avoid the Senate filibuster, all elements of the bill are expected to relate to budget matters. Trump campaigned on a promise to drill more for oil and gas, though under former President Joe Biden, the United States produced more oil and gas than any country ever had. Hours after Trump was sworn in in January, he declared an 'energy emergency' designed to bulldoze barriers to energy production, transportation and export. The reason for that 'emergency,' Trump said, was Biden — his administration's approach to energy and his push to reduce the effects of climate change. But Biden's administration had also claimed credit for getting environmental reviews done 23 percent faster than during Trump's first term. Oil industry leaders scoff at the idea that Biden improved federal process for permitting big projects. 'We certainly know that all the efforts prior to President Trump have not fixed the problem,' said John Stoody, a vice president with the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association. 'So we appreciate whatever his administration can do to fix the broken permitting process.' 'Twist of irony' Since Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, Trump and his appointees have cut a path of disruption through the conventional understanding of how energy and environmental policy works. They revoked White House Council on Environmental Quality rules that have guided agencies and developers for decades. Then they directed permitting agencies to use their emergency powers to bypass environmental rules. Tens of thousands of federal employees have departed because of Trump's campaign, led by billionaire Elon Musk, to shrink the size of the federal workforce through retirements, incentives and mass layoffs. Musk this week announced he'll soon end his work with the Department of Government Efficiency initiative he helped to launch and lead. Among the high-profile moves to speed up projects: Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's plan to cut environmental reviews of fossil fuel and mining projects from years down to no more than a month. Taken together, those policies are probably the biggest offensive against environmental regulations since the laws they implement were written in the 1960s and 1970s. But whether the moves will truly unleash energy projects is unclear because the onslaught has left risk and uncertainty in its wake. 'In a twist of irony,' Jeffers' firm said in an online post, Trump's revocation of NEPA regulations, 'could lead to greater delays in environmental reviews and permitting' for fossil fuel and mining projects, 'at least in the near term.' Trump administration officials' push for agencies to use emergency authorities to speed projects will likely draw court challenges, Tuck said, because laws and regulations generally have very narrow criteria for what qualifies as an emergency. 'Our very consistent response is: 'Be wary of anything they offer to shortcut,'' said Tuck, a partner at Vinson & Elkins. Brandon Tuck of Vinson & Elkins | Linkedin Opponents of the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley gas pipelines accused agencies of taking such shortcuts to speed approval of the projects. They got a sympathetic ear from federal appeals court judges. Atlantic Coast got canceled after years of delays. The Mountain Valley gas pipeline finished more than five years late and billions of dollars over budget, and only after Congress and Biden rescued it. Interior's plan to shrink the time for environmental assessments (EA) to 14 days and environmental impact statements to 28 days, was 'much more aggressive than anything I anticipated,' said Hill, the Interior Department veteran. He's watching for details. 'It's one thing to say you're going to do an EA in 14 days,' he said. 'It's another thing to say how you're going to do that, and I don't think that granular level of detail has been provided.' Tuck said he expects the overhaul to change the order in which tasks are done, not make the process 10 times faster. Developers will need to spend more time and money before applying for an EA or environmental impact statement (EIS) to ensure they've provided everything regulatory agencies will need. Only after that can they expect such a quick decision. 'Nobody's writing an EIS in 28 days. That's fanciful,' Tuck said. 'What they're saying is, you give us all the information, all the analysis, and we'll review it and process it posthaste. But how long does it take clients to develop that information? Oh, you know, many, many months — a year, a year and a half, two years.' The purges of Trump and Musk have been promoted as a way to save money. But energy experts say they could wind up costing project developers a lot of time. The aggressive approach Trump and Musk used to thin the ranks may also have hit the people who could move projects along. When CEO Amy Andryszak of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America presented a list of changes to laws that could speed interstate gas pipeline projects to a House subcommittee last month, she didn't mention Musk's chainsaw approach or the Trump administration's 'Reduction in Force' push. But she did add that 'adequate staffing and expertise across federal agencies' was also important. 'If we are going to build the infrastructure necessary to meet growing energy demand and the administration's goals of American energy dominance,' she said in a statement emailed to POLITICO's E&E News, 'we need agencies with the resources and personnel necessary to ensure the certification and development of the aforementioned infrastructure.' Hill said he's confident the administration has been careful to keep the federal employees needed to keep the permits flowing. But federal employees can do more than just process permits. Agencies can sometimes actively help move projects through the process. But they can't if they don't have enough staff. As an example, Tuck said the Army Corps of Engineers has long done wetland delineations, for landowners, showing which parts of their property can be developed without Clean Water Act concerns. At one point, the agency was able to perform them even for those not seeking permits. But even before Musk opened the throttle on his chainsaw, Tuck said, the Army Corps was cutting back. With the mass exodus from federal offices, he expects the agency will be able to do even fewer. It's too early to know if Trump's plans will mean more energy projects get completed. But at least one big energy project has been slowed by the Trump administration itself. Empire Wind 1, a New York wind energy project, was stalled by the Trump administration in April, though it had all its permits and construction had started. Trump recently relented and allowed work to resume. That has fueled speculation that, in return, Trump expects to get the Constitution natural gas pipeline built through New York. Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has said there is no such 'deal.' The developer of that project, Williams Cos., announced Thursday it is reviving the project and another pipeline planned for the Northeast. The saga illustrates the danger to developers from shifting political priorities. Such moves have happened in other administrations. One of Biden's first actions was to cancel the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which was designed to move Canadian oil into the United States. Former president Barack Obama put the Dakota Access pipeline on ice when protests heated up in North Dakota. The project was rescued by Trump and now moves oil from the Bakken play to the Midwest. The irony of Empire Wind is that the reason the Trump administration gave for stopping it in the first place — 'rushed approval' and lack of 'significant analysis' — is exactly what critics say Trump is inviting for fossil fuel projects.
ABC News
3 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
Trump's tariffs were already ever-changing. Now, court fights add to the uncertainty
There has been a reprieve for Donald Trump's tariff agenda, but its future remains in doubt. On Thursday, local time, the ruling by the International Trade Court seemed a devastating blow to Trump's signature "Liberation Day" tariff and his earlier punitive tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China. The three judges — two appointed by Republicans, one by a Democrat — said the president had overstepped his powers by implementing the tariffs. The Trump administration was quickly on the offensive, once again attacking what it calls "activist" judges for stymieing its agenda. It appealed the ruling, arguing the president possessed the power to implement the tariffs to address a self-declared economic emergency. Later on Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated the Trump tariffs while the ruling is considered. It means importers will continue to pay the tariffs — at least in the short term. Trump's second term tariff policy was already tumultuous with multiple alterations to the rates over the past few months. These court rulings only further muddy already murky waters. Since his return to office, Trump has shown a passion for exercising the powers bestowed upon his discretion. He seemed particularly taken with the power of executive orders. He's signed about 160 of them in his first four months. For comparison, that's roughly the same number Joe Biden signed in his full four-year term. The problem with executive orders is that they're bounded by the laws Congress has enacted and can always be overturned by the next holder of the office. So, most presidents try to marshal the forces of Congress to make new laws, which are far harder to rescind. But that takes time — and Trump says there are lots of issues that need addressing now. He says he can't wait for Congress to act. He's used executive orders to address a range of "national emergencies". These include an "energy emergency", which he's used to push for more oil and gas exploration; a "southern border emergency", used to direct further resources to halt illegal migration; and the "economic emergency", which he's sought to address with a range of tariffs. There have been multiple legal challenges to how he's used these declared emergencies to change rules and policies. It seems all but certain that the most senior court in the land — the US Supreme Court — will eventually need to settle the matter. It should be noted, though, that Trump has used multiple different powers to implement his tariff agenda. Not all rely on declarations of national emergencies. The 25 per cent tariff being levied on steel, aluminium and automotive imports into the US isn't at risk in this case. It's possible the Trump administration will now move from sweeping country-specific tariffs to more industry-specific tariffs instead. The White House says it's looking at all options. US stocks surged after the ruling by the Trade Court, enthusiastic that it could mean a shortened shelf life for the tariffs. On the whole, investors like much of Trump's economic agenda — particularly the promises of low taxes and less regulation. They think these policies will lead to higher economic growth, even if it's at the cost of government services or environmental protection. Let's call these Trump's pro-growth policies. What investors don't like is his love of tariffs, which push up prices and hurt trade. Let's call these Trump's anti-growth policies. Investors are hoping the pro-growth policies are passed by Congress and signed off by Trump, while the anti-growth policies are ditched at some point. This court decision gives Trump an easy out. He could claim he fought hard to implement high tariffs to incentivise businesses to bring jobs back to the US — as promised in his campaign — only to see the plan blocked by judges. Republicans would be hoping that by the time the midterm elections roll around next November, business profits and economic growth are booming because of the tax cuts and deregulation drive — setting them up to hold onto the House and Senate. Whereas if massive tariffs are kept in place for a prolonged period, American consumers would be confronted with higher prices for imported goods. Most economists also think the chance of a recession is increased. Under this scenario, Republicans could instead find themselves asking voters to keep them in charge at a time of major economic insecurity. While Trump himself won't be up for re-election, he has a lot at stake personally. If Democrats are swept back into power, it's highly likely he'll again face impeachment. If his political fortunes have fallen so far that even some Republicans have turned on him, he could even be thrown out of office. The problem for those who want Trump to take the obvious off-ramp is that he's long espoused the power of tariffs. It's seemingly one of his longest and most tightly held political beliefs despite current economic orthodox being that broadly imposed tariffs stifle growth. He's also sensitive to accusations of cowardice. This week, a reporter asked him about the recently coined term "TACO" — which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. It refers to Trump's habit of first imposing massive tariffs before backing away from them. Trump reacted furiously. "I chicken out? I've never heard that," he said. "Don't ever say what you said," he later added. "That's a nasty question. To me, that's the nastiest question." But the evidence is mounting that Trump's most outlandish tariff threats aren't implemented for long. After ratcheting the tariff on most Chinese goods to 145 per cent, he's now dropped it to 30 per cent. Besides China, none of the country-specific reciprocal tariffs announced on his so called liberation day were ever implemented. Last week, he threatened to hit the European Union with a 50 per cent tariff — but that too was delayed a few days later. Still, the universal 10 per cent tariff remains in place for most countries with the threat of a major increase in reciprocal tariffs rates looming. The risk can't be ignored completely. When Trump announced a pause on the country-specific higher reciprocal tariffs, it was supposed to allow time to negotiate and then announce a raft of new deals. Trade adviser and key architect of Trump's trade policies Peter Navarro spoke about securing "90 deals in 90 days", with Trump serving as the chief negotiator. But about halfway through the 90 days, the only agreement has been with the UK — and that wasn't much of a deal. No movement on the level of tariff, just some extra access for certain products. With the legality of Trump's tariffs a live question, it would be understandable for other countries to wait and see how the court battles play out. While the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says "Other countries around the world have faith in the Negotiator-in-Chief, President Donald J. Trump," it will be the US court system that determines just how much power he wields in such negotiations. Trump claims to have two, in some ways contradictory, motives for waging his tariff battle. He wants to use them to incentivise businesses to bring production back to the US by making it prohibitively expensive to make things overseas. He also wants to use the threat of tariffs to force other governments to bend to his will, particularly by opening access to their markets for US goods. The ongoing uncertainty of his legal authority to wage his trade war makes both goals more difficult to achieve. Business doesn't want to go through the expensive process of moving production if the tariffs won't last, and why would a foreign government try to strike a deal with a leader who doesn't have control of the tariff stick he threatens to wield?
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Federal Job Seekers Will Be Quizzed on Trump's Executive Orders
The Trump administration is adding four essay questions to applications for civil service jobs, asking applicants about their favorite executive orders and their commitment to government efficiency. The essay requirements apply even to relatively lower-level jobs starting at the GS-5 pay scale or above — positions that can begin at base salaries as low as $32,357. Those jobs include nursing assistants, park rangers and firefighters.
New York Times
3 days ago
- Health
- New York Times
Youth Climate Activists Sue Trump Administration Over Executive Orders
Young people who sued state governments over climate change have begun a legal challenge aimed at President Trump's spate of executive orders on climate and the environment. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Montana, argues that three of the executive orders are unconstitutional and would cripple the clean energy industry, suppress climate science and worsen global warming. The 22 plaintiffs, ranging in age from seven to 25 years old, are mostly from Montana, as well as Hawaii, Oregon, and other states, and are represented by the nonprofit legal group Our Children's Trust. That group has notched two important legal victories in recent years, winning cases against the state of Montana and the Hawaii Department of Transportation. 'Trump's fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation,' said Eva Lighthiser, 19, the named plaintiff. 'I'm not suing because I want to. I'm suing because I have to. My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line.' The plaintiffs argue that they are already experiencing harms from a warming planet in the form of wildfires, drought and hurricanes, and that Mr. Trump's executive orders will make conditions even worse. They say the executive orders violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty by infringing on their health, safety and prospects for the future. Further, they argue that the orders constitute executive overreach, because the president cannot unilaterally override federal laws like the Clean Air Act. The executive orders in question include those declaring a 'National Energy Emergency,' directing agencies to 'Unleash American Energy,' and 'Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.' The complaint points to immediate consequences from the executive orders, like exempting the Colstrip coal-fired power plant in Montana from pollution rules. The aging plant emits more harmful fine particulate matter pollution, or soot, than any other power plant in the nation, according to Environmental Protection Agency data. A Biden-era rule would have compelled the facility, the only coal plant in the country to lack modern pollution controls, to install new equipment, but it received an exemption from the Trump administration last month. Several of the plaintiffs live near the plant or a mine that provides it with coal, or along the facilities' transport routes, said Julia Olson, founder of Our Children's Trust. The suit names Mr. Trump and several cabinet secretaries and agencies, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum; Energy Secretary Chris Wright; and Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator. The Interior Department and the E.P.A. both declined to discuss pending litigation. The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The complaint also takes aim at the Trump administration's cuts to federal climate research projects like the National Climate Assessment, which is the government's flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country. The report is required by Congress but last month the administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been working on the latest version. 'In order for them to protect their rights, they need science,' Ms. Olson said of the young people. One of the plaintiffs is Rikki Held, 24. She was also the named plaintiff in the Montana case, in which the Montana Supreme Court agreed that the state's energy policies had violated Montanans' constitutional right to a clean environment. A daughter of a ranching family in the town of Broadus in southeastern Montana, Ms. Held studied environmental science and is now teaching high school students in Kenya. Ms. Held said her science career had been inspired by the U.S. Geological Survey researchers who would visit her family's land to study the Powder River. That agency is facing significant reductions under the Trump administration's proposed budget. In an interview from Kenya, Ms. Held said that her family had endured numerous effects of a warming planet, including increased wildfires. That effects livestock, the economy and the food systems that she and her neighbors rely on, she said. 'With all the wildfires, there's smoke in the air that affects health,' she said. 'Especially for ranchers, you don't have an option to stay inside. You have to go out and work take care of your livestock. I've been out fencing in 110 degree days, which is a record-breaking temperature from my area. In 2021, we had two or three of those days, and you just have to be out in the heat and keep working, because you don't have another choice.' The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the orders unconstitutional, block their implementation and protect the rights of youth as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and their respective state constitutions. Our Children's Trust was joined in filing the suit by Gregory Law Group of California, McGarvey Law of Montana and Public Justice, a public interest law firm in Washington. Another case by Our Children's Trust filed in 2015, Juliana v. United States, was described as a legal landmark, but was dismissed by a federal appellate court. In March, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. That suit argued that the federal government had violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs with policies that encouraged the use of fossil fuels over many decades. In dismissing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that courts were not the right venue to address climate change. Our Children's Trust said the new case was different because it is focused on specific executive orders and their implementation in recent months.
