Trump's executive action against Perkins Coie law firm has been invalidated by the judge, deemed as an unprecedented move.
Washington Dusted Trump's Executive Order: A federal judge's tough words on Friday made it clear that President Donald Trump's attempt to target the Perkins Coie law firm is an "unprecedented attack" on the US judicial system. In a fiery opinion, Judge Beryl Howell called out Trump's efforts as a threat to American democracy, likening it to a centuries-old playbook.
Howell, a judge appointed by former President Obama, issued a permanent injunction, banning the enforcement of any part of Trump's March executive order. The order focused on the firm's representation of Hillary Clinton and its work with George Soros. She likened Trump's actions to Shakespeare's famous quote, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The judge highlighted the importance of independent lawyers in ensuring a fair and impartial administration of justice, tracing its roots back to John Adams' decision to represent British soldiers charged with the Boston Massacre. Howell contended that Trump's executive order violates the Constitution and, as a result, is null and void.
Trump has a history of attacking Perkins Coie, promising to act against the firm if he won the 2024 election. The judge's ruling confirmed that this order was a form of unconstitutional retaliation, based on the firm's representation of political opponents.
Perkins Coie's spokesperson welcomed the ruling, praising the decision that protects the firm, clients, and the rule of law. The Justice Department did not comment immediately after the ruling.
Trump's executive order limited Perkins Coie employees' access to government buildings, revoked security clearances, and ordered federal agencies to terminate contracts with the firm. In her ruling, Howell criticized firms that struck deals with the White House to avoid their own executive orders. She questioned the implications of such deals for the vigorous, zealous representation clients deserve from ethical counsel.
Trump's attacks on law firms have prompted criticism within the legal community. Skadden Arps, one of the firms that made a deal with Trump, faced backlash from alumni who signed a protest letter.
This ruling sets a precedent against executive actions targeting law firms based on political differences. It reinforces the independence of the judiciary as a check on executive power and underscores the importance of protecting the legal profession from political retaliation. This decision will likely have implications for future cases targeting law firms on political grounds.
Commentary
- Significance of the Ruling: This ruling signifies a strong judicial stance against the misuse of executive power for political vendettas, ensuring that the legal system remains fair and impartial. It reinforces constitutional safeguards against executive overreach, strengthens public trust in the judiciary, and upholds the integrity of the legal profession.
- Implications for the U.S. Judicial System: This ruling could lead to increased oversight of executive actions, ensuring that they align with constitutional principles and the rule of law. It may also encourage confidence in the judiciary as an impartial guardian of constitutional rights and promote professional integrity within the legal field by ensuring lawyers can represent clients without fear of political reprisal.
Associated News:
- Trump administration: Trump's social media post targeting Harvard's tax-exempt status could create problems for the IRS
- politics: White House 'influencer briefings' bring conspiracy theorists, former Trump officials
[1] Constitutional Law Center, Legal Sources for Research: Free Speech and Expression (2019)[2] American Bar Association, Freedom of Speech and Association (2017)[3] Cohan, L., The Jury and the President (2014)[4] Epstein, L.A. & Walker, M.J., Constitutional Law (2019)
- The judicial system, in its role as a check on executive power, has taken a significant step against shortcuts that bypass the rule of law, as shown by Judge Beryl Howell's ruling against shortcuts targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, a firm that had worked with George Soros and Hillary Clinton.
- The Judge's decision, which'unmute' and 'decrease' the volume of political retaliation, serves as a reminder of the critical role of independent lawyers, like those at Perkins Coie, in ensuring a fair and impartial administration of justice, a concept traced back to John Adams' representation of soldiers during the Boston Massacre.
- This ruling'judicial' in nature, in a broader context, carries implications for the future of politics, both general-news and those involving prominent figures like George Soros and Hillary Clinton, by setting a precedent against executive actions targeting law firms based on political differences.
