Border Cops Try To Make an End Run Around Attorney-Client Privilege
https://reason.com/2025/04/08/border-cops-try-to-make-an-end-run-around-attorney-client-privilege/
Tag: law
Another big law firm cuts a deal with White House to avoid sanctions
“A third major law firm has reached an agreement with the Trump administration to escape a punishing executive order that would cost it government business.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, which has more than 1,200 attorneys, will provide at least $100 million in legal services to causes favored by the White House and end diversity programs under terms of a deal President Donald Trump announced Tuesday on social media.”
…
“Trump has deployed executive orders and memos to punish law firms he views as adversaries. Among them are longtime Democratic Party partner Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling — which provided legal services to former special counsel Jack Smith.
Several firms, including Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, have fought back against Trump’s punishing orders, suing to block the orders.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/01/law-firm-cuts-deal-avoid-sanctions-00265285
I Worked at a Big Law Firm. Here’s What to Know About the Surrender to Trump.
“In recent weeks, two large law firms reached settlements with the Trump administration that stunned the legal profession — the first with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which pledged to commit $40 million in free legal work “to support the Administration’s initiatives,” and the second with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which upped the ante to a $100 million commitment. The deals allowed the firms to avoid sanctions imposed by Trump’s executive orders, including revocations of government security clearances held by the firms’ lawyers and prohibitions on entering federal buildings.”
…
“You can attribute the two deals mostly to the fact that what Trump is doing — using the power of the presidency to target law firms that he personally dislikes — is legitimately unprecedented. The full scope of the consequences from Trump’s orders are far from clear, and large law firms are temperamentally conservative by nature. Faced with such uncertainty, surrender becomes an option.
The bottom line is that large law firms exist to make money — ideally lots of it — and they are generally not paragons of virtue, principle or self-sacrifice.”
…
“it is a crime under federal law for public officials to engage in extortion, and the Justice Department’s public guidance explains that the theory has been used against public officials “serving on the federal, state and local levels.”
Trump is not the direct beneficiary of the pro bono work agreed to by the firms, but the DOJ guidance explains that the law applies even if the “corrupt payment went to a third party.” Moreover, a person or company can be liable under the law if they are “truly the instigator of the transaction,” so both sides of these deals could conceivably be held accountable.
You could make similar arguments under federal bribery law — the line between bribery and extortion is often hard to parse in particular fact patterns — but of course, the Justice Department is not going to do anything about it, and Trump enjoys broad criminal immunity even after he leaves office. In theory, the law firms are at greater risk — a Justice Department in a new administration could always take an interest — but that seems highly unlikely.”
…
“two effects are conceivable, at least at the margins. The first is that law firms will be less willing to take on political clients. The second is that law firms may prove less willing to hire former government lawyers involved in politically controversial cases — or even lawyers who they think may go on to do that sort of work.
More broadly, law firms may pull back on supporting pro bono work that could be controversial with the Trump administration or the Republican Party, including immigration-related cases.”
…
” In a democratic society, lawyers should not have to worry about whether the government will punish them for having clients or colleagues who are somehow associated with the political opposition. Likewise, private parties should be free to choose their own lawyers without having to worry that the government will be biased against their attorneys or will hamper their work for improper reasons.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/01/trump-big-law-attacks-12-questions-00261359
Two more law firms targeted by Trump sue to block punishing executive orders
“Two law firms targeted by President Donald Trump sued Friday to bar enforcement of his executive orders seeking to shut them out of government business and strip key lawyers of their security clearances.
In separate suits, Big Law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale say Trump’s effort to target them amounts to an unprecedented attack on the legal profession in retaliation for their work for past clients he doesn’t like and for past causes with which he disagrees. If carried out, they say, the orders would devastate their practices and have already begun to cause anxiety among their hundreds clients with government business.
Jenner & Block’s lawsuit contends Trump’s order is an unconstitutional threat to the firm and the legal system itself, seeking to “punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate.” The lawsuit was filed on the firm’s behalf by California-based law firm Cooley LLP.
“The President’s sweeping attack on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional,” writes Paul Clement, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer representing the firm in its lawsuit. “The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale, its employees, and its clients to speak freely, petition the courts and other government institutions, and associate with the counsel of their choice without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials.””
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/jenner-block-eo-lawsuit-trump-00256160
Trump’s Reading of the Alien Enemies Act Defies the Usual Meaning of Its Terms
“Until Trump took office in January, the AEA had been invoked only three times in 226 years: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. All of those situations fell into the “declared war” category. The AEA has never previously been invoked in response to a putative “invasion or predatory incursion” outside the context of a declared war. That is the threat Trump cites to justify peremptorily deporting suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.”
…
“Trump does not claim to be at war with Venezuela. Nor does he claim that the Venezuelan government has mounted an “invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” And a criminal organization, even one that has corrupted or “infiltrated” a foreign government, is not a “hostile nation or government” as those terms are ordinarily understood.
Nor does Trump’s understanding of “invasion or predatory incursion” make sense in the context of the AEA. “As the Supreme Court and past presidents have acknowledged, the Alien Enemies Act is a wartime authority enacted and implemented under the war power,” Katherine Yon Ebright, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice who specializes in national security issues, explained last fall. “When the Fifth Congress passed the law and the Wilson administration defended it in court during World War I, they did so on the understanding that noncitizens with connections to a foreign belligerent could be ‘treated as prisoners of war’ under the ‘rules of war under the law of nations.’ In the Constitution and other late-1700s statutes, the term invasion is used literally, typically to refer to large-scale attacks. The term predatory incursion is also used literally in writings of that period to refer to slightly smaller attacks like the 1781 Raid on Richmond led by American defector Benedict Arnold.””
…
“”There is a lot of law about what constitutes a foreign government,” Gelernt told Boasberg. “And I don’t think the United States recognizes [Tren de Aragua] as a foreign government. They recognize Venezuela as a foreign government. I think that’s the
historic understanding of the statute.”
Gerlent also questioned the government’s definition of “invasion or predatory incursion”: “We think the Court certainly can review whether immigration constitutes some kind of invasion….We know of no historical precedent that would suggest that straight migration or noncitizens coming and committing crimes constitutes an invasion within the meaning of the statute or the Constitution.””
https://reason.com/2025/03/21/trumps-reading-of-the-alien-enemies-act-defies-the-usual-meaning-of-its-terms/
White House strikes deal with major law firm to lift sanctions
“President Donald Trump has reached a peace deal with a prominent law firm, agreeing to lift a punitive executive order in exchange for concessions that include an agreement to do pro bono work on behalf of conservative causes.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/20/white-house-law-firm-sanctions-026866
Trump’s TikTok-Oracle deal could break the law — but nobody can stop him
“Across Washington, China hawks are trying to draw a hard line against any plan that would let ByteDance maintain a degree of control of the company or insight into its underlying technology, both of which are banned by the bipartisan 2024 law passed by Congress.
But Trump is already violating that law by allowing the app to stay online. And if his promised deal goes through, Congress has almost no leverage to stop it: The law leaves final approval in the president’s hands, and lawmakers can’t take him to court even if he violates its clear meaning.
“Congress does not have standing to sue,” said Alan Rozenshtein, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. He said a lawmaker can typically only file suit if they’re personally harmed by a violation.
An illegal TikTok-Oracle deal blessed by Trump would immediately join a host of White House actions that flout settled law. The Trump administration is being sued for breaking laws around deportations, civil-service protections, federal spending rules, government data-sharing and more — all of which are now playing out in federal courts across the country.
When it comes to TikTok, however, even the courts offer little recourse to enforce the 2024 law, which the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed in January.
The law requires a “qualified divestiture” of TikTok — an arrangement where ByteDance gives up all control of both the company and the powerful algorithm that runs TikTok’s video-sharing service. It can retain at most a 20 percent financial stake in the company.
The Oracle deal under discussion — a modification of a prior arrangement between TikTok and Oracle, where U.S. user data was stored on Oracle-run servers while ByteDance retained a role in TikTok’s operations — would likely flunk one or more of those tests. But it’s Trump who is ultimately empowered to declare an agreement acceptable.
“The president gets to decide what constitutes a qualified divestiture,” said Michael Sobolik, a former national security staffer for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute. “That is completely up to him, even though the contours of what needs to happen in a divestiture are spelled out in the law.”
China hawks on Capitol Hill are rattling their sabers at Trump, warning against any deal that keeps ByteDance in the room.
“The law is clear,” Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House Select Committee on China, wrote on Tuesday. “Any deal must eliminate Chinese influence and control over the app to safeguard our interests.”
But Moolenaar and other lawmakers have few options to stop Trump once he decides to proceed. And lawyers say Washington’s sense of powerlessness is compounded by the fact that the White House is already ignoring the TikTok law.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/21/trumps-tiktok-oracle-deal-could-break-the-law-but-nobody-can-stop-him-00242107
Legal Education Has Lost Its Way
“The idea that one type of lawyer can meet all legal needs is as outdated now as it was in 1935. Law schools and the legal academy must adjust accordingly.”
https://reason.com/2025/01/15/legal-education-has-lost-its-way/
Hegseth Accidentally Says The Quiet Part Out Loud
Trump fires top military lawyers so they aren’t roadblocks to anything Trump wants to do. But, the lawyers are supposed to be roadblocks! They are there to help the military follow the law and the Constitution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41qCPFPzsbw
Trump’s Tariffs Could Squeeze the Supreme Court
“When Trump imposed tariffs during his first term, he cited authority under other laws, like the Trade Act of 1974 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. At one point he threatened to invoke the IEEPA to impose tariffs on Mexican goods, but he never followed through, perhaps amid concern it would have been seen as legally dubious.
That’s because the IEEPA is typically used to impose sanctions — not tariffs — on other countries.
But Trump’s decision to use the IEEPA this time, when he’s aggressively flexing his executive authority, may be no accident: Unlike other trade laws, the IEEPA has the fewest procedural requirements and safeguards.
It gives the president the power to regulate or prohibit a broad swath of economic activity in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” that is based largely outside the United States and concerns “the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” In the executive orders that announced the tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, Trump invoked the opioid crisis, as well as illegal immigration from Canada and Mexico.”
…
“No president has ever used the IEEPA to impose tariffs before. In fact, the IEEPA was passed as part of a broader effort by Congress in the 1970s to limit the president’s ability to exercise emergency economic powers. The framework ultimately created, however, completely fails to rein in the president, according to Timothy Meyer, a law professor and expert on international trade law. And Trump is taking advantage of that failure by pushing beyond what the Constitution intended.
“This strikes me as unconstitutional,” Meyer told me. “It’s very difficult to see how the framers would’ve thought that it was constitutional for the president to simply have the power on the drop of a hat to impose an across-the-board 25 percent tariff on our major trading partners.”
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Between Trump’s tariffs and his unilateral effort to halt federal spending, he has now effectively claimed that he has both taxing and spending authority — a government all his own. Congress barely even needs to exist in this framework.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/09/trump-tariffs-unconstitutional-supreme-court-00203178