Sounds like a win win situation if you actually hate white supremacy. Now,if your only posturing,but actually want to be white supremacy in black skin? Yes,this is probably a major setback
Due to Trump's executive order targeting them, large legal law firm agrees to work for him for free + take action against DEI
- Thread starter RamsayBolton
- Start date
Sounds like a win win situation if you actually hate white supremacy. Now,if your only posturing,but actually want to be white supremacy in black skin? Yes,this is probably a major setback
get these nets
Veteran
Law firms fighting Trump to ask judges to permanently block executive orders
April 23, 2025WASHINGTON (AP) — Two major law firms are expected to ask separate judges on Wednesday to permanently block President Donald Trump’s executive orders that were designed to punish them and hurt their business operations.
The firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — have said the orders imposed in March are 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.
Courts last month temporarily halted enforcement of key provisions of both orders, but the firms are in court Wednesday 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.
“Although Perkins Coie did not bring this suit lightly, it was compelled to do so to preserve its ability to continue representing the best interests of its clients,” lawyers for Perkins Coie wrote in a filing ahead of the hearing. “The Constitution does not permit our elected leaders, from any party, to punish lawyers by fiat for representing clients who oppose their political agendas. It would set a grave precedent for our Republic if the Order were allowed to stand.”
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 orders have generally imposed the same consequences, including directing the suspension of attorney security clearances, restricting lawyers’ access to federal buildings and terminating federal contracts.
The first law firm action took place in February when Trump signed a memo suspending 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, the firm Paul Weiss cut a deal with the Trump administration that resulted in an executive order against it 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.
Dems should have killed Executive Orders when Biden was in charge..now look.
get these nets
Veteran
Trump’s Order Targeting Law Firm Perkins Coie Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
The decision marked the first time a federal judge permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an order to punish law firms he opposes politically.
May 2, 2025
A federal judge ruled on Friday that an executive order President Trump signed in March targeting the law firm Perkins Coie was unconstitutional and directed the government not to enforce its terms, which had threatened to upend the firm’s business.
The ruling was the first time a court had stepped in to permanently bar Mr. Trump from trying to punish a law firm he opposes politically.
Skipping a trial and moving directly to a final ruling, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that attempts to bring the firm to heel under the threat of retaliation amounted to unlawful coercion, and imperiled its lawyers’ ability to freely practice law.
“No American president has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue,” she wrote, adding, “In purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’”
The lawsuit was the first of four similar cases to reach a resolution. Lawyers representing the firm had argued that the nature of the president’s order was so obviously coercive that minimal time was needed to assess its illegality.
They argued, and Judge Howell agreed, that the order clearly violated the First and Fifth Amendments, denying Perkins Coie and other similarly situated firms freedom “to think and speak as they wish” and equal protection under the law
The majority of employers think Trump's DEI and immigration policies are creating ‘significant challenges' for their business
Two key Trump priorities are causing major ripples in the corporate world.
get these nets
Veteran
Trump’s war on Big Law leads firms to retreat from ’pro bono’ work for underdogs
07/31/25When the Texas Civil Rights Project needed lawyers to help dozens of people arrested during U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, legal director Dustin Rynders turned to a familiar strategy. He contacted major law firms that for decades had provided free legal services to nonprofits like his.
On that April day in Houston, he called his usual contacts, many at firms that had previously handled challenges to Trump’s immigration policies. Before Trump’s return to the White House, they typically offered swift “pro bono,” or free, legal help – a standard public service provided by elite U.S. firms.
This time, they all declined. “We are just handling the cases ourselves at this point,” Rynders said.
In March and April, Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting law firms he considers adversaries, the first such attacks by a U.S. president against the legal profession. Some of the orders lashed out at firms for donating their time to cases involving immigration, transgender rights and the January 6 attack by Trump supporters on the U.S. Capitol, claiming this legal work undermined U.S. interests.
Months later, the aftershocks threaten lasting damage to America’s tradition of mobilizing free lawyers to challenge government actions on behalf of the vulnerable.
Dustin Rynders, the Legal Director for the Texas Civil Rights Project, faces a shrinking pool of pro bono support as law firms retreat under pressure from Trump’s executive orders.
Dozens of major law firms, wary of political retaliation, have scaled back pro bono work, diversity initiatives and litigation that could place them in conflict with the Trump administration, a Reuters investigation found. Many firms are making a strategic calculation: withdraw from pro bono work frowned on by Trump, or risk becoming the next target.
Reuters interviewed more than 60 lawyers, reviewed 50 law firm websites, contacted more than 70 nonprofits and analyzed millions of court records to compile an authoritative account of the fallout from Trump’s intimidation of Big Law.
Fourteen civil rights groups said the law firms they count on to pursue legal challenges are hesitating to engage with them, keeping their representation secret or turning them down altogether in the wake of Trump’s pressure, according to interviews with the nonprofits and a review of filings they have made in court.
In an analysis of court dockets, Reuters also found that Big Law firms have pulled back sharply from litigation against the federal government. That’s a departure from Trump’s first term, when the nation’s largest firms were often involved in challenges to his directives. Now, they’re mostly on the sidelines amid an avalanche of lawsuits contesting administration policies spanning immigration, funding cuts to nongovernmental organizations and attempts to fire tens of thousands of federal workers.
The retreat has been painful for the nonprofit advocacy groups challenging Trump’s sweeping assertions of executive authority, limiting their resources for researching legal arguments, preparing briefs and pursuing litigation. Such groups offer legal aid to low-income communities and have long relied on pro bono support.
The term pro bono, derived from the Latin pro bono publico, or “for the public good,” dates back to ancient Rome. While practiced globally, it has become deeply rooted in the U.S. legal system, with the American Bar Association urging lawyers to provide free services to those unable to afford representation.
Pro bono work is now being reshaped into a tool of political coercion under Trump, said Steven Banks, the former head of pro bono at Paul Weiss. Banks resigned after his firm was punished in a Trump executive order and reached a settlement in March that included a deal to provide pro bono services on issues aligned with Trump’s agenda. Other firms followed with similar arrangements
*Rest of article*
Similar threads
