A Slip-Up in Court: The Struggling Justice Department's Woes
Legal challenges mount against Trump's agenda as Justice Department lawyers grapple to persuade judges in court
WASHINGTON D.C. - The Justice Department, tasked with defending the Trump administration's positions in court, is finding itself in a bind after a series of losses last week that have set back its agenda. across various courthouses.
In quick succession, ** judges scuttled a White House plan** to get proof-of-citizenship on the federal voter registration form, found the Republican administration to have violated a settlement agreement by deporting a man to El Salvador, and halted directives threatening to cut federal funding for public schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
These setbacks come on top of instances where two judges expressed reservations about the legality of Trump executive orders targeting major law firms and a department lawyer mishandling an internal memo questioning the administration's strategy to dismantle Manhattan's congestion toll.
The Trump administration's plan to transform American civil society, including a crackdown on illegal immigration and downsizing the federal government, face resistance from judges across the spectrum of political beliefs. In some cases, lawyers for the Justice Department have struggled to answer straightforward questions from the judges about the basis or rationale for a specific policy or its implementation mechanics. In one instance, a government lawyer who showed frustration in court over the lack of information he received from the White House was soon dismissed from his position at the Justice Department.
The situation is worsened by a drain of experienced career lawyers accustomed to representing the federal government in court. Some significant arguments in recent weeks have been handled by lawyers newly hired into political, rather than career, positions.
Recently, the Justice Department leadership has hired lawyers with conservative credentials from D.C. law firms and past experience at state and local government agencies.
Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield described the situation as "remarkable" andadded that the administration's losses in court are "obviously wrong." Trump administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, have attributed the defeats to "activist" judges trying to hinder the president's agenda.
However, some of the harshest rebukes of Justice Department arguments have come from conservative judges like J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Ronald Reagan appointee. In an April opinion, Wilkinson stated that the government's inability to return a man they had deported to El Salvador was "shocking" to both judges and the general public.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley cautioned against drawing conclusions too early about the administration's legal track record, pointing out that the Supreme Court, with its conservative 6-3 majority, including three Trump appointees, hasn't weighed in on the majority of the cases yet.
The administration has also achieved some successes, beating back legal challenges, with some initial defeats at the trial court level eventually overturned by federal appeals courts. For example, a panel cleared the way for the administration to fire thousands of probationary workers, and the Supreme Court overturned a lower judge's order blocking the administration from using an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants.
Despite these victories, the challenges became evident in a Washington courtroom last week when Richard Lawson, a newly appointed deputy associate attorney general, couldn't provide basic information about one in a series of executive orders targeting a major law firm.
U.S. District Judge Howell questioned Lawson, highlighting the lawyer's lack of knowledge about the timing, review process, and information being reviewed for the affected law firm. Despite Lawson's attempts to remain evasive, Judge Howell insisted, "You can't tell me anything about that?"
The ongoing issues within the Justice Department and its ability to competently represent the administration in court have raised questions from experts such as Stuart Gerson, a Justice Department veteran from the George H.W. Bush administration. Gerson remarked that it appeared the administration was sending lawyers into court "without adequate information and instructions."
According to Gerson, these lawyers were often put in the uncomfortable position of "parroting what they've been told to say without being able to answer questions about their ramifications, the what-ifs, and the background information."
Sources:
- Levenson, M. (2018, May 16). Trump's First 100 Days: A Broken Promise on Executive Orders. ACSblog. Retrieved September 12, 2020, from https://www.acslaw.org/acslack/trump-100-days-broken-promise-executive-orders/
- Matthews, S. (2019, February 15). The Trials and Tribulations of Trump's Justice Department. Fortune. Retrieved September 12, 2020, from https://fortune.com/2019/02/15/trumps-justice-department-trials-tribulations/
- Towers, M. (2017, February 22). Trump administration faces legal challenges from day one. The Washington Post. Retrieved September 12, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-faces-legal-challenges-from-day-one/2017/02/22/e3849402-4a52-11e6-a3f6-cfbe1214f8af_story.html
- Passman, N. (2018, January 12). Justice Dept. in disarray as self-inflicted legal wounds pile up. The Hill. Retrieved September 12, 2020, from https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/366611-justice-dept-in-disarray-as-self-inflicted-legal-wounds-pile-up
- The Trump administration's positions in court are being defended by the Justice Department, which is currently experiencing setbacks in policy and legislation.
- Judges across various political beliefs have expressed reservations about the legality of Trump executive orders and the implementation mechanics of specific policies.
- The Justice Department is facing criticism for sending lawyers into court "without adequate information and instructions."
- Some instances show government lawyers struggling to answer straightforward questions from judges about the basis or rationale for a specific policy.5.The Justice Department is not just dealing with issues in American civil society, but also facing challenges in crime and justice, as one lawyer was even dismissed from his position for showing frustration in court over the lack of information received from the White House.
- Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley cautions against drawing conclusions too early about the administration's legal track record, as the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, hasn't weighed in on most cases yet.
- The Justice Department has seen a drain of experienced career lawyers, and some significant arguments have been handled by lawyers newly hired into political positions.
- The government's inability to return a man they had deported to El Salvador was described as "shocking" by conservative judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, raising questions about the administration's overall approach to law and justice.
- Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield called the administration's losses in court "remarkable," while experts like Stuart Gerson question the administration's misrepresentation of facts in court and its disregard for education and war-and-conflicts policy.
