Federal Judge May Strike Down Trump’s Orders Targeting Law Firms
Key Takeaways:
- A federal judge appointed by George W. Bush may overturn Trump’s executive orders targeting major law firms.
- Four judges have already blocked parts of Trump’s orders, calling them likely unconstitutional.
- The DOJ faced sharp criticism for defending the restrictions during a recent hearing.
- Over 2,000 groups and legal experts oppose Trump’s orders, warning they threaten the independent legal system.
A Judge’s Warning: Trump’s Orders Under Fire
A federal judge appointed by former President George W. Bush is considering striking down President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at major law firms. These orders have already faced significant pushback from four separate federal judges, who have ruled parts of them likely unconstitutional. Now, U.S. District Judge John Bates seems ready to go even further, potentially dealing a major blow to Trump’s actions.
During a recent hearing, Judge Bates made his dissatisfaction clear. He sharply criticized the Justice Department’s attempts to defend the restrictions, which target law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. When DOJ attorneys tried to justify limiting Jenner & Block employees’ access to federal buildings, Bates responded with frustration: “Give me a break!”
The government argued that the restrictions were necessary to combat discrimination. However, Judge Bates and other legal experts have not been convinced by this reasoning.
DOJ’s Defense Under Fire
The DOJ’s argument has been called into question by more than just Judge Bates. During the hearing, an attorney for Jenner & Block compared the government’s reasoning to “a game of Twister, verbal gymnastics, to justify this architecture of retaliation based on speech.”
This criticism highlights what many see as the core issue: Trump’s orders appear to punish law firms for their political views or legal work, rather than addressing any legitimate concern. The orders have sparked widespread concern among legal experts, who argue that they threaten the independence of the legal profession.
Over 2,000 Groups and Legal Icons Oppose Trump’s Orders
The backlash against Trump’s orders is not just coming from judges. More than 2,000 groups and individuals have filed “friend-of-the-court briefs” to support the law firms targeted by the orders. These briefs argue that the orders are a dangerous overreach of presidential power and could have far-reaching consequences.
Among the high-profile opponents of Trump’s orders is Paul Clement, a well-respected conservative legal icon. Clement, who argued on behalf of WilmerHale, called the orders “a direct and lethal threat to the independent bar.” He warned that they could undermine the ability of lawyers to represent clients without fear of retaliation from the government.
Judges Agree: Retaliation Is Clear
Judge Bates is not the only judge to express concern about Trump’s orders. Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, another appointee of George W. Bush, left no doubt about his view during a recent hearing. “It’s retaliatory,” Leon said. “There’s no question in my mind.”
This sentiment has been echoed by other judges who have reviewed the orders. Four federal judges have already blocked parts of Trump’s orders, ruling that they likely violate the Constitution. While none have struck down the orders entirely, the growing chorus of criticism suggests that the remaining parts of the orders may not survive legal scrutiny.
What’s at Stake?
The fight over Trump’s orders is about more than just four law firms. At stake is the principle of an independent legal system, where lawyers can represent clients without fear of political retaliation. Legal experts warn that if the orders are allowed to stand, they could set a dangerous precedent, allowing future presidents to target other groups or industries based on political disagreements.
As Judge Leon made clear, the issue is simple: “It’s retaliatory.” The question now is whether Judge Bates and other judges will take the next step and strike down the orders entirely. If they do, it could be a significant blow to Trump’s efforts to target major law firms and a major victory for those who believe the legal system must remain free from political interference.