Lawfare wins again: Judge stops Trump from punishing Mueller-linked firm



President Donald Trump has attempted to deny special privileges to elite law firms directly or peripherally involved in the lawfare waged against him and his allies in recent years. Federal judges have sided with the law firms on every occasion, including on Tuesday in the case of a firm that long employed former special counsel and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the president's order to deny security clearances and government contracts to WilmerHale was "unconstitutional" and "must be struck down in its entirety."

White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said in a statement to Blaze News, "The decision to grant any individual access to this nation’s secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the president."

'My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms.'

"Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the president's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority," added Harrison.

Trump has taken aim in recent months at a number of law firms he reckons cannot be trusted with security clearances and whose "egregious conduct" disqualifies them from receiving taxpayer funds or contracts from the federal government.

After targeting Perkins Coie and the law firm Covington & Burling, Trump issued an executive order on March 27 directing Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and other relevant agency heads to take all lawful measures to suspend active security clearances held by individuals at WilmerHale.

RELATED: Libs previously silent on Dem lawfare decry Trump terminating 'dishonest' law firms' security clearances

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Image

In addition to directing the Office of Management and Budget to ensure WilmerHale was not leeching off government resources, Trump ordered federal agency heads to terminate any contracts with the firm "to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law."

"My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called 'Big Law' firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests," wrote Trump. "Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles."

'It likely violates multiple foundational safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights.'

Trump suggested that WilmerHale, specifically, "engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote."

The president hinted that there was a personal aspect to his animus toward WilmerHale, noting that the firm "rewarded" and welcomed Robert Mueller to the firm after he "wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history."

The firm, represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, sued the Trump administration on March 28, calling the executive order both an "unprecedented assault" on the right to counsel and an "undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes he disfavors or employing lawyers he dislikes."

"These 'personal vendetta[s]' are so facially improper that the first court to address the merits of one of these orders concluded that it likely violates multiple foundational safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights," said the firm's complaint.

Clement stated at the time of filing, "This litigation is not political. It is about protecting the fundamental independence of the bar."

RELATED: Obama judge permanently blocks Trump order against Perkins Coie law firm in scathing ruling that quotes Shakespeare

Photographer: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Judge Leon, who made liberal use of exclamation marks throughout his ruling, claimed that the provisions in Trump's order "constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech!"

"The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!" wrote Leon.

"This is the President, in essence, wielding the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the State to punish and suppress WilmerHale's advocacy," he continued.

The judge ultimately issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the order, claiming that "to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!"

Leon's decision is the latest in an unbroken series of similar rulings in favor of law firms that Trump has accused of engaging in "egregious conduct" of a disqualifying nature.

Anjan Sahni, the firm's managing partner, said in a message to alumni, "This is a significant victory — not only for our firm and our clients, but also for the rule of law."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Obama judge permanently blocks Trump order against Perkins Coie law firm in scathing ruling that quotes Shakespeare



A federal judge issued a scathing ruling against the Trump administration for an executive order issued against the Perkins Coie law firm that she claimed violated the Constitution in numerous ways.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said Friday that the order violated three separate amendments to the Constitution and ordered that it be permanently blocked.

'Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.'

Perkins Coie is known for its involvement in the Trump dossier debacle, where dubious documents were collected in an attempt to substantiate accusations against President Donald Trump that he was colluding with the Russian government.

Howell said in the 102-page ruling that Trump's order against the firm violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth amendments.

"Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with 'tolerance, not coercion,'" she wrote.

She compared Trump to a character from Shakespeare's play Henry VI, who famously says, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers," and explained that the order was in the same direction as totalitarianism.

"Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power," she explained.

Howell had previously issued a temporary ruling against parts of the order and criticized the administration for violating the First Amendment.

“Regardless of whether the president dislikes the firm’s clients, dislikes the litigation positions the law firm takes in vigorous representation of those clients, or dislikes the results Perkins Coie achieved for its clients,” Howell wrote, “issuing an executive order targeting the firm based on the president’s dislike of the political positions of the firm’s clients or the firm’s litigation positions is retaliatory and runs head-on into the role of First Amendment protection.”

Howell was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here,” Howell said in the previous ruling.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Obama judge temporarily halts parts of Trump order against Perkins Coie law firm



A judge ruled against the Trump administration and temporarily blocked parts of the president's order targeting the infamous Perkins Coie law firm.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said Wednesday that the order from President Donald Trump was likely unlawful and issued a temporary restraining order against parts of the command.

'I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here.'

The firm is most famously known for being involved in the Trump dossier debacle that Democrats used to accuse Trump of collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump ordered the suspension of all active security clearances held by people at the law firm and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to identify federal properties and assets used by the firm in order to terminate their access.

Howell said the order likely violated the Constitution in relation to free speech as well as due process.

“Regardless of whether the president dislikes the firm’s clients, dislikes the litigation positions the law firm takes in vigorous representation of those clients or dislikes the results Perkins Coie achieved for its clients,” Howell wrote in the decision, “issuing an executive order targeting the firm based on the president’s dislike of the political positions of the firm’s clients or the firm’s litigation positions is retaliatory and runs head-on into the role of First Amendment protection.”

The temporary restraining order only pertains to three of six sections in accordance with the wishes of the firm.

“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here,” Howell added at the hearing.

Howell was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Libs previously silent on Dem lawfare decry Trump terminating 'dishonest' law firms' security clearances



Liberals previously silent about the lawfare waged against President Donald Trump by the Biden administration, and apparently unbothered by Democratic operatives' years-long campaign to professionally crush attorneys who supported Trump, are now clutching pearls over the Republican president's termination of special privileges for a pair of adversarial law firms.

Last month, Trump signed a memorandum to suspend security clearances for members of the law firm Covington & Burling who helped Jack Smith, the former special counsel whose unsuccessful prosecutions against Trump the president has since characterized as "part of the prior administration's unprecedented weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process."

Trump noted in the order that "individuals who hold government-issued security clearances bear a responsibility to uphold impartiality and the national interest," then insinuated that the firm's provision of $140,000 in free legal services to Smith was demonstrative of an extra-professional and partisan interest in the special counsel's political mission.

Days later, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and other relevant agency heads to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at the Democratic-aligned firm Perkins Coie and ordered the Office of Management and Budget to identify federal properties and assets made available to Perkins Coie so that agency heads can "expeditiously cease such provision."

In his March 6 order, Trump also set the stage for the termination of any governmental contracts with Perkins Coie, citing the need to spare taxpayers from subsidizing "racial discrimination, falsified documents designed to weaponize the Government against candidates for office, and anti-democratic election changes that invite fraud and distrust."

The two firms' deprivation of special privileges prompted fellow travelers to cry foul.

'This is just jaw-dropping.'

The Seattle chapter of the leftist National Lawyers Guild, once called the "foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party," denounced Trump's revocation of Perkins Coie's security clearances, stating that the decision "exemplifies his complete disregard for the rule of law and his contempt for core American democratic values."

The American College of Trial Lawyers claimed in a statement that Trump's orders "threaten lawyers and law firms merely for advocating for positions that the administration disfavors," adding that "lawyers throughout the country should unite in condemning these actions in the strongest possible terms."

Neither the NLG nor the ACTL appear to have similarly condemned the Democratic-aligned 65 Project's apparent attempts to deprive political opponents of effective legal representation and to disbar attorneys who threatened Democratic control with election-fraud lawsuits.

Numerous liberal scholars have jumped on the concern-monger bandwagon, characterizing the big firms' loss of special privileges as potentially unconstitutional.

"This is just jaw-dropping," Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School and vociferous Trump critic, told Vox. "This represents sort of a great escalation of a trend that was already evident."

'They were very dishonest people.'

Some liberal critics suggested that the perceived suspension of security clearances on the basis of which clients the firms represented might constitute viewpoint discrimination.

Tribe suggested Perkins Coie's loss of security clearances might also violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, which is "gravely endangered if the executive branch can brand and ostracize a particular group of lawyers and strip them of the security clearances, without which they could not represent a number of the people that the administration either has gone after or has indicated an intention to go after."

Ellen Podgor, a Stetson University law professor, suggested to CNN that by taking away the adversarial firm's access to classified information and federal buildings, "you're taking away the ability of an attorney to act in their role as a lawyer."

Legal experts made clear to Reuters that the Trump administration is within its rights to grant and rescind security clearances and federal contracts.

University of Colorado Law School professor Maryam Jamshidi suggested that challenging the termination of security clearances, which Perkins Coie has said it will do, would be legally difficult.

Trump appears eager to review and possibly tear up additional firms' security clearances and federal contracts.

"We have a lot of law firms that we're going to be going after because they were very dishonest people," Trump told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo Sunday. "They were very, very dishonest. I could go point after point after point. And it was so bad for our country. And we have a lot of law firms we're going after."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Trump Admin And All Republican States Should Ditch The American Bar Association

With lawyers and judges like those the American Bar Association advances, the United States will quickly discard what's left of our constitutional order.

Far-Left Wisconsin AG Doubles Down On Political Prosecution Of Trump Attorneys

Trump campaign lawyer Jim Troupis, who helped guide the alternate electors plan, spoke publicly for the first time as AG files more charges.

Obama-Appointed Judge Smacks Down Marc Elias’ ‘Absurd’ Election Lawfare

It’s what you might expect from a firm headed by one of the chief architects of the Russia collusion hoax.

Mark Levin flips the script on past Democratic election deniers



Elections matter, ladies and gentlemen. And Mark Levin recalled a time when the Obama administration allegedly used the FBI and the intel agencies to try and stop Donald Trump from winning the presidency and allegedly planted fake information with their friends in the media. Mark questioned why Obama never came under investigation. Remember the dossier Hillary Clinton purchased and used to intimidate Donald Trump? Mark played a video montage of Democrats calling Trump an illegitimate president, saying Trump stole the election, and Russian collusion, among other election-denying behaviors.


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Even If The Jury Doesn’t Convict Michael Sussmann, The Special Counsel Has Won

Measuring Special Counsel John Durham’s performance by the outcome in United States v. Sussmann would be a mistake.

Here’s A Play-By-Play Of The Special Counsel Criminal Case Heading Into Week Two

Today starts week two in United States v. Sussmann, Special Counsel John Durham’s false statement case against Michael Sussmann.