• Federal judge expresses deep skepticism over Trump law firm executive o

    From Biased Journalism@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 23 11:12:52 2025
    XPost: or.politics, or.general, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    or.politics,or.general,alt.politics.trump,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    <http://apnews.com>

    Federal judge expresses deep skepticism over Trump law firm executive
    order
    By ERIC TUCKER

    April 23, 2025

    WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Wednesday over
    a President Donald Trump executive order targeting a prominent law firm, signaling that she was inclined to grant a request to permanently block
    its enforcement.

    U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell grilled a Justice Department lawyer over
    the government's plans to suspend security clearances from lawyers at the
    firm of Perkins Coie and pressed him to explain why the Trump
    administration was forcing law firms to disavow the use of diversity,
    equity and inclusion considerations in its hiring practices.

    "Why does the administration view those three words as dirty?" Howell
    asked.

    Justice Department attorney Richard Lawson said the government remains concerned about what it considers the "unlawful" evaluation by law firms
    of applicants based on of "race, sex and ethnic based issues unrelated to
    them as individuals."

    At issue Wednesday were requests from two law firms - Perkins Coie and WilmerHale - to permanently halt executive orders imposed against them
    last month. Judges last month temporarily blocked enforcement of key
    provisions of both orders, but the firms are asking for the edicts to be
    struck down in their entirety and for judges to issue rulings in their
    favor. Another firm, Jenner & Block, is expected to make similar arguments
    next week.

    The executive orders taking aim at some of the country's most elite and prominent law firms are part of a wide-ranging retribution campaign by
    Trump designed to reshape civil society and extract concessions from
    perceived adversaries. The actions have forced targeted entities, whether
    law firms or universities, to decide whether to push back and risk further incurring the administration's ire or to agree to concessions in hopes of averting sanctions. Some firms have challenged the orders in court, but
    others have proactively reached settlements.

    The firms consider the orders to be unconstitutional assaults on the legal profession that threaten their relationships with clients and retaliate
    against them based either on their past legal representations or their association with particular attorneys who Trump perceives as his
    adversaries.

    The executive actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against
    the targeted firms, including ordering the suspension of security
    clearances, the termination of federal contracts and restrictions in
    access to federal buildings for firm employees.

    In court Wednesday, Howell said she was troubled that the administration
    was putting the "cart before the horse" by stripping security clearances
    en masse without first conducting an individualized review of attorneys.
    She appeared to grow exasperated as Lawson struggled to answer questions
    about the basic mechanics for implementing the security clearance
    suspension or the review process for the targeted attorneys.

    "You can't tell me which agencies are conducting this review?" she asked
    at one point.

    "You don't know whether the firm or the attorney whose security clearance
    has been suspended has been given notice about the timing of the review"
    or whether they will have an ability to object to the review, she said.

    The first law firm action took place in February when Trump suspended the security clearances of attorneys at Covington & Burling who have provided
    legal services to special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated the
    president between his first and second terms and secured two indictments
    that have since been abandoned.

    The executive order targeting Perkins Coie singled out the firm's representation of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during
    the 2016 presidential race, and the one against WilmerHale cited the fact
    that special counsel Robert Mueller - who investigated Trump during his
    first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 campaign - was
    for years a partner at the firm.

    Last month, Paul Weiss cut a deal with the Trump administration that
    resulted in an executive order against the firm being rescinded.

    Since then, more than a half-dozen other firms have reached agreements
    with the White House that require them, among other things, to dedicate
    free legal services to causes the Trump administration says it champions.

    They include Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Milbank; Willkie, Farr
    & Gallagher; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins LLP; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; and Cadwalader, Taft & Wickersham.
    --

    Created with https://notepad-plus-plus.org/ $Free
    Posted Through Usenet Server: http://news.individual.net/ $10 annually
    Using Forte Agent 8.00 news reader $29 for the life of product ==================================================
    Anyone that isn't confused doesn't really
    understand the situation.
    ~Edward R. Murrow USA WWII Correspondent ==================================================

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)