If you’ve been following the wannabe Mob Boss antics of Trump since taking office again you know he’s threatened big-time lawyers and law firms. Incredibly, his “Nice law practice you’ve got there – it would be a shame if something happened to it” has sometimes worked. Deals were made. In exchange for Trump not ‘going after’ them they’d drop certain cases Trumpty didn’t want them involved in AND do pro bono work for the Trump Administration. However, some law firms did what you’d expect a high-powered firm to do and told Trump “See you in Court a$$hole.” With a new ruling a federal judge appointed by Bush 41 has vindicated their standing up to Trump, and at the same time blistered Trump’s fat white butt with an old-fashioned whupping.
As we learn in this article from Alternet U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates ruled in favor of law firm Jenner & Block, rejecting the Justice Department’s effort to defend Trump’s executive order targeting Jenner & Block. Making it even worse (for Team Trump) the judge used Trump and his minions own words against them in the fifty-page (plus) ruling. He specifically stated there was no doubt why Jenner & Block was targeted – ‘because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents and that one of their lawyers was once employed at DOJ. The judge saw right through the lame crap DOJ claimed in court and in polite legal terms said “Don’t go pissing on my leg and try to tell me it’s raining”:
Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work—and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward—violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” (Id.; citations omitted.)
Judge Barnes wasn’t done. Not by a long shot. He gave a preview of the fate that awaits similar orders where the lawyers/law firms that stand up to Trump and tell him to “get stuffed” will hold:
This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full. (Id.; emphasis supplied.)
As Alternet’s article bluntly states, the firms that have challenged Trump have gone undefeated in court, AND the big firms that settled, or more accurately caved to Trump lost. Again. The judge’s ruling made it clear that other firms (he cited some) should not have “bowed” to Trump, sometimes without even waiting for an Executive Order. In fact he suggested they only made things worse for themselves:
“A firm fearing or laboring under an order like this one feels pressure to avoid arguments and clients the administration disdains in the hope of escaping government-imposed disabilities. Meanwhile, a firm that has acceded to the administration’s demands by cutting a deal feels the same pressure to retain “the President’s ongoing approval.“ Either way, the order pits firms’ “loyal[ty] to client interests“ against a competing interest in pleasing the President. (Id. at p. 16; citations omitted.)
Urging that “‘[t]he right to sue and defend in the courts’” is “‘the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government,’” Judge Bates continued:
Our society has entrusted lawyers with something of a monopoly on the exercise of this foundational right—on translating real-world harm into courtroom argument. Sometimes they live up to that trust; sometimes they don’t. (Id. at p. 17; emphasis supplied.)
The linked article goes on to describe the beating the firms that capitulated have been taking. They’ve lost respect in the legal profession of course and with the exception of those who partake of RWNJ news only it’s been a public PR disaster. However, they’ve also lost lawyers including PARTNERS (some well known) and worse, clients. If you have the money to hire one of these high powered firms (and it takes a LOT of money to hire them) do you want a bunch who will wimp out when they need to dig in and fight for you?
No, the firms that caved didn’t think things through. It’s a good, thoughtful article and worth the time to read. If you’re too busy (which would be a shame) just know that Trump and the DOJ are set up to keep LOSING. So are the lawyers and law firms that basically curled up in the fetal position and whimpered ‘please don’t hurt me Trump.’ I say BRAVO to those who have shown some damned guts and stood up for the Rule of Law.
***From Ursula*** Zoomers, if you’re able to contribute in any way, we could use help. I’ve been ill and recuperating from a brief hospitalization. Times are tough for political commentary to begin with, and that’s been the case since November 5. Half the country is in a major depression. But we need to keep on keeping on. This too shall pass and there will be a brighter, post-Trump day if we work for it. Please join us and help if you can. Thank you. Ursula
Bravo to the judge, to the firms that brought the case, and to you for this informative and punchy report.
Damn, you beat me to it! When I found out about this I was damn near dancing around the room, not only for the “in your eyes, tRump” but for the judge hammering them on it. The court followed in the footsteps of Judge Boasberg and Judge Xinis, as well as others across the country who said “oh hell NO”.
Unfortunately, I’m still worried about that one little phrase in El Presidente Imbecil’s “Big Ugly Bill” and it doesn’t seem like anyone except the news is catching it…..