this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
87 points (97.8% liked)

politics

23206 readers
3402 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary:


More than 500 law firms on Friday denounced President Donald Trump’s campaign to punish individual firms, calling his actions abuses of power that endanger the rule of law.

The firms said in a court filing that Trump’s orders are potentially devastating for any firm he targets and appear intended to intimidate others so that they do not challenge his administration. The filing was not signed by any of the 20 largest firms nationwide, as measured by revenue.

“Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create,” the group objecting to Trump’s orders wrote in the filing.

Trump has issued orders castigating several prominent law firms, citing their connections to some of his perceived foes and directing that they face significant consequences. The punishments have included losing government contracts and being blocked from federal buildings or interacting with government employees, which firms describe as catastrophic for their operations.

His orders have caused a sharp divide within the legal community, with firms and attorneys split on whether to fight.

Some firms have reached deals with the Trump administration to avoid punishment, agreeing in some cases to provide up to $100 million in pro bono work for causes the president supports. Three firms targeted by Trump — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — instead sued to fight the orders, and federal judges at least temporarily blocked many of the penalties they faced.

The court filing submitted Friday was signed by hundreds of firms backing Perkins Coie in its lawsuit. The filing — known as an amicus, or friend of the court, brief — appeared to be a show of support from across the legal profession, with signatures from large firms with hundreds of employees as well as smaller, boutique operations. Three firms targeted by Trump — WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Covington & Burling — were among those that signed.

“We are grateful for the support of over 500 law firms, as well as numerous other amici, in our challenge to the unconstitutional Executive Order and the threat it poses to the rule of law,” Perkins Coie said in a statement.

It was not immediately clear whether the largest firms that did not sign had all been contacted about the filing or offered a chance to sign on before it was submitted. The Washington Post contacted all 20 firms before the brief was submitted and again after it was filed. Most firms did not immediately respond to either query.

Senior partners from Keker, Van Nest & Peters publicly said days earlier that they had signed on to it and urged big firms to follow their lead.

Trump began targeting firms in February, taking aim at several that employed people who had investigated him or had other ties to his foes. He assailed Perkins Coie for representing Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 presidential race, and punished Covington & Burling for its representation of Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw federal indictments against Trump.

In the brief, the firms backing Perkins Coie said Trump’s orders “seek to cow every other firm, large and small, into submission.” The firms said the orders posed a “looming threat” that any attorney or firm challenging the administration could face “the risk of devastating retaliation.” Challenging government overreach is a core part of what lawyers and law firms do, they added, something that invariably brings them into conflict with the government.

The firms also expressed “particularly acute concern” about the portions of Trump’s executive orders criticizing firms for their pro bono work, saying attorneys have to be able to advocate for all clients, “large and small, rich and poor.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the filing Friday.


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nkat2112 9 points 3 weeks ago

You know the excrement has hit the wall when even owners, partners of a multitude of law firms are forming their own union of sorts. This is good news.

We should all follow this example at various organizational levels and stand together.

The firms also expressed “particularly acute concern” about the portions of Trump’s executive orders criticizing firms for their pro bono work, saying attorneys have to be able to advocate for all clients, “large and small, rich and poor.”

^^ That law firms have to explain this to Felon Drink Bleach is incredible.