Two months into his second presidency, Donald Trump is aggressively attacking both judges and law firms. Trump is calling for judges who are blocking his executive orders to be impeached, and he is trying to make life difficult for major law firms that represent his political foes by pulling their security clearances.Some major firms are making concessions in the hope of making peace with Trump, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Full disclosure: this journalist’s mother was employed by Skadden, Arps during the 1980s. In an op-ed published on March 29, the New York Times’ David Enrich analyzes Trump’s motivations for targeting major law firms. READ MORE: ‘Next domino to fall’: Ex-RNC chair predicts MAGA’s voter suppression ‘end game'”Mr. Trump and his administration’s lawyers are fighting in court,” Enrich explains, “but they are also pursuing a much more ambitious and consequential goal: deterring lawyers from suing his administration in the first place. In a series of recent executive orders, Mr. Trump has restricted the ability of some major law firms, including those that employed his perceived political enemies, to interact with the federal government. Among the president’s stated rationales was that some of the work done by the firms gets in the way of his administration’s immigration and other policies.”In a March 22 memo, Enrich notes, Trump directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States.”Enrich argues, “Those adjectives are fuzzy, but the threats are clear. Giant law firms tend to have lucrative businesses helping corporate clients get their way with the federal government, whether it is winning contracts or defusing investigations or minimizing the impact of regulations. Being penalized by the government would be bad for business. Mr. Trump’s recent broadsides have stunned the legal industry, many of whose practitioners pride themselves on pursuing cases against perceived overreach by both Republican and Democratic administrations.”READ MORE: ‘One phrase in particular’ makes Trump’s Smithsonian order ‘deeply disturbing’: analysisEnrich points out that Trump’s executive orders “have revealed stark differences in how powerful law firms want to handle an aggressive and unpredictable president.””Three firms have sued to block Mr. Trump’s orders, calling them blatantly unconstitutional,” Enrich observes. “On Friday evening, (March 28), federal judges in Washington issued temporary restraining orders granting two of the firms, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, relief from the executive orders. Two others — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — struck deals with the president to avoid or rescind such orders. Regardless, Mr. Trump’s moves have the potential — and perhaps the goal — to undermine people’s ability to challenge their government.”READ MORE: ‘Freaking out’: Trump mocked for saying ‘out loud’ why he withdrew Stefanik’s nominationDavid Enrich’s full New York Times analysis is available at this link (subscription required).
Russia behind 145 acts of sabotage across Europe since 2022 heres how
...
Read moreDetails