Judicial Skepticism Towards Trump's Rushes Against Law Firms
Federal judge displays doubt towards Trump's law firm executive orders issued by a higher-up.
In a colloquial, straightforward manner, let's delve into the latest tussle between the Trump administration and prominent law firm, Jenner & Block LLP.
Recently, U.S. District Judge John Bates has shown reservations towards the legality of an executive order issued by the Trump administration, targeting Jenner & Block, expressing his concern that the purpose seemed more Punitive than Official. The judge had temporarily halted President Donald Trump's executive order against Jenner, but he heard arguments on Monday regarding a permanent block. A similar plea was made by the firms Perkins Coie and WilmerHale last week, to other judges who appeared open to their arguments.
Judge Bates, much like his counterparts, did not immediately rule but often challenged a Justice Department lawyer's assertions that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not punishment. The actions generally imposed similar sanctions, such as suspending security clearances, terminating federal contracts, and barring lawyers from accessing federal buildings.
"It's trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner," Bates argued. He further inquired, "Isn't it logical that clients would be hesitant to engage Jenner & Block if they knew there's a chance that Jenner and Block wouldn't be able to enter federal buildings or communicate with federal agencies?"
Richard Lawson, the Justice Department lawyer, contended that it was premature to make such an assessment since guidelines regarding the implementation of the executive order have yet to be released.
Michael Attanasio, a lawyer advocating for Jenner & Block, found the Justice Department's defense to be somewhat peculiar. "This order is designed to do one thing: it's designed to penalize a law firm because of the cases it takes and its association with a critic of the president," Attanasio asserted. This comment was a nod to the fact that the executive order against the firm specifically acknowledged that Jenner & Block had previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating potential ties between Russia and Trump during his first term.
"All we need to do is read this thing," Attanasio stated. "It smells of unconstitutionality. It should be discarded in its entirety." To date, each of the law firms facing an executive order that has challenged it in court has managed to get it temporarily blocked, while others have opted to strike preemptive agreements with the White House to avoid being targeted.
On Monday, Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly and California Rep. Dave Min, members of the House Oversight Committee, sent letters to law firms that have reached agreements with the administration seeking details about the terms of the deals.
- Judge Bates, similar to other judges, has expressed reservations about the legality of the Trump administration's executive order against Jenner & Block, suggesting that the order appears more punitive than official.
- Michael Attanasio, a lawyer representing Jenner & Block, has asserted that the Justice Department's defense of the executive order against the firm seems peculiar, as the order seems designed to penalize the law firm due to its association with a critic of the president.
- Attanasio also found that the executive order against the firm, which specifically acknowledges Jenner & Block's previous employment of Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on Robert Mueller's team, carries an unusual whiff of unconstitutionality.
- In a similar vein, Judge Bates argued that the executive order against Jenner & Block is attempting to punish the firm by stopping the flow of money to it, questioning if clients wouldn't be hesitant to engage the firm knowing it might be unable to enter federal buildings or communicate with federal agencies.
- Gerald Connolly and Dave Min, members of the House Oversight Committee, have sent letters to law firms that have reached agreements with the administration, requesting details about the terms of these deals in the context of policy-and-legislation, politics, and general news.
