Four different district court judges from across the political spectrum ruled that executive orders aimed at Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey are unconstitutional on multiple grounds. The Department of Justice has appealed the Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey rulings. Susman Godfrey stated that the orders violate the Constitution, undermine Americans' right to choose counsel, and that the firm challenged the order to defend the rule of law. The Supreme Court's apparent willingness to depart from legal norms injects uncertainty into final outcomes. The executive orders pose a direct affront to legal institutions and the rule of law.
Donald Trump's efforts to defend the executive orders targeting Biglaw firms that have earned his ire are loser cases. Four different district court judges from across the political spectrum have all ruled that EOs aimed at Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, respectively, are unconstitutional on a variety of grounds. Yet, the administration is appealing the Jenner & Block case, and the WilmerHale case, and the Perkins Coie one too.
The courts have spoken clearly and decisively: the administration's executive orders targeting law firms violate the Constitution and undermine Americans' right to choose a lawyer without fear. Susman Godfrey challenged this order because we believe in the rule of law. That belief continues to guide us as we fight the administration's unwarranted appeal and continue to defend the rights of our clients and our colleagues.
But the rub is that the Supreme Court is disturbingly willing to eschew legal norms and bend over backwards for Trump, so what should be an easy call at the High Court becomes an open question. And Trump is hoping to capitalize on that and is pushing to get in front of his favorite justices. These EOs are pretty obviously an affront to legal institutions and the very rule of law - let's hope the majority of the Court sees that too.
Collection
[
|
...
]