SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
u.s. constitution
Trump Lawyers Behaving Badly
The White House attorneys who drafted Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law firms—and the Justice Department lawyers trying to defend them—should consider the oath they took to defend the Constitution.
May 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation,” including legal filings for improper purposes and statements that are not based on evidence.
Bondi should start with the White House attorneys who drafted Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law firms—and her Justice Department lawyers trying to defend them.
Did Real Lawyers Write These Orders?
Cloaked in empty rhetoric about “conduct detrimental to critical American interests,” retribution is at the core of Trump’s edicts.
For example, the only detailed rationale for Trump’s Jenner & Block order was the firm’s association with Andrew Weissmann, who returned to the firm in 2020 after completing his work for Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the Trump-Russia investigation. Other than the Weissmann diatribe, Trump’s order merely recited vague and unsupported assertions about alleged “partisan ‘lawfare,’” “abuse of its pro bono practice,” and “racial discrimination.”
But on that basis, Trump directed all federal agencies to: 1) limit the entire firm’s engagement with federal employees; 2) limit the entire firm’s access to federal buildings; 3) suspend the entire firm’s security clearances; 4) terminate the firm’s government contracts; and 5) require all government contractors to disclose any business that they do with Jenner—with an eye toward terminating those contracts as well.
Zealous advocacy on behalf of any client—even the president of the United States—has limits.
Four law firms have challenged Trump’s similar orders. In stark language, four separate federal courts have granted immediate relief:
- “Disturbing”
- “It sends little chills down my spine.”
- “It threatens to significantly undermine our entire legal system and the ability of all people to access justice.”
- “There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.”
- “The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power.”
In three recent hearings, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson—Bondi’s longtime Florida colleague and Trump loyalist—struggled to answer judges’ basic questions about the orders targeting Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block:
- Do law firms have to make deals with Trump to avoid executive orders?
- “I can’t speak to that.”
- Are the deals in writing?
- “I have not been privy to this.”
- Has Trump achieved $1 billion in deals yet?
- “I do not know.”
When Lawson argued that Trump could target Jenner because it “discriminates against its employees based on race,” U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, snapped back, “Give me a break.”
In fairness to Lawson, Trump and his White House attorneys who wrote the orders hadn’t given him much to work with.
Jenner: A Case Study
Take a closer look at Jenner’s claims, followed by selected highlights of the government’s 37-page response:
The First Amendment:
- Prohibits retaliatory actions for protected speech and viewpoint discrimination;
- Bars government interference with a client’s right to associate; and
- Prevents the government from imposing unconstitutional conditions on access to government services and benefits.
The government says that Trump was just exercising his free speech rights. It asserts that Jenner’s lawsuit “carries with it a dangerous risk of muzzling the Executive.” The government also argues that Jenner’s speech is not protected insofar as it “consists of employment practices involving racial discrimination [favoring women and minorities].”
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee a litigant the unfettered right to the effective assistance of counsel of his or her choice.
The government says that: 1) clients (not law firms) have to assert such claims; 2) any impact of barring Jenner from federal buildings or its clients from federal contracts is speculative; and 3) Trump’s order does not violate those rights in any event.
Due Process is required before the government can deprive a person of liberty or property interests. It requires notice of the claims, clarity about their meaning, and the opportunity to be heard before the deprivation occurs. None of that occurred. The resulting harm, including damage to the firm’s reputation, was immediate and ongoing.
The government says that: 1) the order is sufficiently clear; 2) it has not yet harmed the firm; and 3) the firm will receive any required notice before the order actually injures it.
Equal Protection requires the government to treat similarly-situated entities similarly or, at a minimum, have a rational basis for failing to do so.
The government insists that Jenner is not being singled out for unfair treatment.
The Constitution’s Separation of Powers prohibits Trump from acting as accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. But he wore all of those hats in his executive order.
The government says that Trump’s order is an appropriate exercise of presidential power.
Attention All Trump Lawyers: It’s Time for a Gut Check
Zealous advocacy on behalf of any client—even the president of the United States—has limits. Upon admission to the bar, every attorney swears an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and to uphold the rule of law. A code of professional ethics requires any legal argument to be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument” for changing it. Attorneys must ensure that their statements about facts are “reasonably based” on evidentiary support.
Trump’s retaliatory orders seek to intimidate lawyers and law firms into submission and thereby undermine the legal system. His own conduct refutes his lawyers’ contrary arguments. As other firms have capitulated, pledged “political neutrality,” and collectively committed to provide almost $1 billion in free legal services to Trump-designated causes, his executive orders’ stated concerns about those firms’ “conduct detrimental to critical American interests” miraculously disappeared.
Trump even boasted, “And I agree they’ve done nothing wrong. But what the hell—they give me a lot of money, considering.”
In one of the many amicus briefs supporting Jenner’s challenge, more than 800 law firms—including Deputy Associate Attorney General Lawson’s former firm, Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips—urged that Trump’s executive order “should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles.”
“But something even more fundamental is at stake… [Trump’s] Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”
I don’t know what Trump’s lawyers see when they look into a mirror. But I know this: History will not be kind to them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Nation of Laws, Not Men: Why Lawyers Are Taking a Stand This Law Day
The oath we took upon joining the bar wasn't a one-time ceremony but a lifelong commitment. On May 1, we renew our promise to the Constitution en masse.
Apr 30, 2025
The American promise rests on a profound yet simple idea: We are governed by laws, not by the whims of individuals. This bedrock principle—that impartial rules apply equally to all—faces an unprecedented assault. On May 1, state and local bar associations, civil rights organizations, and lawyers nationwide will unite in an unprecedented mobilization to defend this cornerstone of American justice.
As lawyers, we take a solemn oath: to support the Constitution of the United States. "Support" in this context implies a more proactive stance than mere defense. This oath compels us to take affirmative steps to uphold the principle that law, not personal power, reigns supreme. Today, fulfilling this obligation has never been more critical.
This Thursday, lawyers in over 40 cities will stand shoulder to shoulder, collectively raising their right hands to publicly recommit to their sacred oath for the National Law Day of Action. This act isn't mere symbolism—it's an alarm bell in a moment of genuine peril for our justice system.
Our message is simple but urgent: If we allow the independence of courts and lawyers to be compromised today, our other rights will become negotiable tomorrow.
The threats to judicial independence have become impossible to ignore. When a federal judge faces impeachment threats simply for upholding the law—as Judge James Boasberg did after halting deportation flights—we've crossed a dangerous threshold. We've witnessed instances where judicial directives are contested not through proper legal channels but through public disparagement and apparent noncompliance. Alarmingly, the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan by federal authorities represents an unprecedented escalation, sending a chilling message to judges across the country. When court orders are treated as optional suggestions rather than binding mandates, and when attorneys face intimidation for representing unpopular clients, our constitutional foundations are actively eroding.
A nation of laws requires an independent judiciary. Judges must be able to rule based on law rather than political pressure. Lawyers must be free to zealously advocate without fear of retribution. Without these, equal justice becomes hollow rhetoric. This is starkly illustrated by recent events where law firms representing clients who oppose administration policies have faced executive orders suspending their employees' security clearances and barring them from federal buildings—actions that one judge noted send "chills down my spine" for the "extraordinary power" they represent.
Our judges and courts have no militias. As Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist 78, courts depend entirely on their institutional legitimacy and the bar's commitment to uphold their authority. When that authority is undermined through defiance or delegitimized through partisan attacks, we approach a system where power, not principle, determines outcomes. A judge intimidated today means justice denied tomorrow.
This national mobilization on Law Day transcends partisan divides because the rule of law transcends politics. We all lose in a system where legal outcomes depend on who holds power rather than what the law requires. The growing pattern of attempts to circumvent judicial authority—from ignoring court orders to demanding recusal after unfavorable rulings to demonizing "activist" judges—represents an assault on constitutional safeguards that protect us all.
The attacks on judges and lawyers form a two-pronged assault on the constitutional order we pledged to defend. An intimidated bar cannot check government overreach; a weakened judiciary cannot enforce accountability. These essential guardians of liberty now face unprecedented threats.
The oath we took upon joining the bar wasn't a one-time ceremony but a lifelong commitment. On May 1, we renew our promise to the Constitution en masse. We will be a visible reminder that the legal profession stands united against forces that would replace the rule of law with the rule of the powerful.
Our message is simple but urgent: If we allow the independence of courts and lawyers to be compromised today, our other rights will become negotiable tomorrow. No freedom survives when those who defend it are silenced or controlled.
We call on every member of the bar—and indeed every person who values constitutional government—to join this historic stand for democracy. Find your local event at LawDayofAction.org. When we stand together, recommitting to our oath with one voice, we send an unmistakable message: The legal profession will defend our nation of laws and ensure justice remains equal for all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Your Key Constitutional Rights Are on Trial in Vermont
The Ozturk and Mahdawi cases are scheduled soon in the U.S. District Court of Vermont, but only you get to decide the verdict in the court of public opinion.
Apr 29, 2025
Unless something goes awry, both Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi will be in a Vermont courtroom in the next few weeks. Both will contest the government’s right to abduct and imprison people with no due process, because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Both prisoners ask for the ancient right of habeas corpus, a remedy for wrongful detention which prevented kings of England from throwing people in jail arbitrarily. The courts will decide whether freedom of speech and due process for everyone are still the law of the land.
But you and I will decide whether we, the people, will allow illegal arrests like these, or whether we will protest so loudly that the government dare not continue them. Why should we be concerned? What happened here? In the crush of so many outrages, it’s easy to lose track how these two cases involve the same core issues and yet are different in some important respects.
One contrast is that Mahdawi had a public role in organizing and protesting with a Columbia Palestinian students’ union until March 2024, when he withdrew because he advocated for Palestine as a safe place for Jews and Palestinians alike. Ozturk’s only “crime” is co-authoring a column in the Tufts University newspaper asking that the University acknowledge the genocide of more than 50,000 of the Palestinian people, and act accordingly. A State Department investigation before her arrest found no link at all to terrorism or antisemitism. Ozturk literally has been locked up only because of her written words, while Mahdawi was out on the streets exercising his right to free speech.
Can anyone really believe that a column in a university newspaper or demonstrations on a college campus could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Another contrast is that Mahdawi reacted to doxxing and false accusations by going underground, and was interviewed by CBS News the day before his arrest. He was prepared. Ozturk was fearful but continued her private life. When Mahdawi reported at the “honey trap” of a long-awaited citizenship interview, he was accompanied by allies who videoed him being taken away in handcuffs. He knew what he was walking into, and decided it was worth the risk because the interview might fulfill his dream: U.S. citizenship. He had the immediate attention of his lawyers, his neighbors, and the press.
The contrast with Rumeysa Ozturk’s arrest and abduction could not be greater. The unsuspecting 30-year-old woman was walking in broad daylight to an interfaith center when six masked agents swooped down on her, grabbed her phone, handcuffed her, and marched her to an unmarked vehicle. For 24 nightmarish hours, Ozturk was whisked across state lines to New Hampshire and then Vermont where she was held overnight, and at dawn flown to Louisiana where she has been imprisoned ever since. Her statement says that she initially thought she was in the hands of killers, not police. Ozturk’s repeated requests to call her lawyer were refused.
While Mahdawi says he is “in good hands” in a Vermont prison, Ozturk has described a nightmarish situation at the detention center in Louisiana. Both in her written statement to the court, and in her conversations with the senator and representatives who visited her, she described 24 women and a mouse in a cell meant for 14. In sum, “unsanitary, unsafe, and inhumane.” Ozturk has also been deprived of asthma medication and healthcare, and her hijab was removed without consent.
For all these differences, the cases have some similarities apart from involving the Palestinian cause. Both people have extensive support from their communities. The classic white-steepled church in Hartland, Vermont was packed with Mahdawi’s neighbors who wanted to help him any way they could. The District judge had never seen so many letters of support (almost 100). Ozturk is also highly regarded. In addition to letters from the President of Tufts University (whom her column criticized) and many colleagues and faculty, 27 national Jewish organizations supported her in an amicus brief. They of all people should understand the dangers of abducting people on the street because of what they say, with no due process.
In both landmark cases, judges specifically ordered that the prisoners not be moved from the state where they were arrested. Mahdawi is still in Vermont because the judge’s order was sought and granted immediately. The agents who abducted Ozturk hurtled across the Massachusetts border and crossed three state lines before 24 hours had passed. The Trump administration contends that Ozturk’s petition is invalid because it wasn’t filed in the right state—despite the fact that they prevented her from communicating until she was in Louisiana.
Both Ozturk and Mahdawi were the victims of doxxing, and false information spread through networks of extremists who targeted them. Ozturk’s column was her only public statement on the Palestinian issue, and the Trump administration had to stretch to find something amiss—that her words were in sympathy with a group that was later temporarily banned on campus. Far from being an antisemite as charged, Mahdawi was the leader of a protest where he led the whole group in chanting, “Shame on you” at a demonstrator who cursed the Jewish people.
The basis for the Trump administration’s action in both situations is vague and alarming. Can anyone really believe that a column in a university newspaper or demonstrations on a college campus could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi are petitioning for one of the oldest rights in our common law, because their rights under the U.S. Constitution—to speak and to have due process of law—have been violated in numerous ways. Whether you are in Vermont with its traditions of free speech and direct democracy, or in any of the other 49 states where the Bill of Rights is still alive, speak for them. Speak to your president who has jailed them and his officials, your senators and representative, every form of media you read or see, your state and local government. Stand by the road with a sign, and invite your neighbors to join you. Talk to all the organizations you belong to and connect with people, regardless of their political beliefs. Most people feel that no one in our country should be abducted and jailed arbitrarily.
The rights you save might be your own. In fact, they are—at least for now.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular