“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.”
“The Trump administration conceded in a court filing Monday that it mistakenly deported a Maryland father to El Salvador “because of an administrative error” and argued it could not return him because he’s now in Salvadoran custody.”
“The American Bar Association and dozens of other bar groups this week slammed President Donald Trump’s continued crackdown on the legal system as an attack on the rule of law.
“Words and actions matter,” the groups wrote in an open letter on Wednesday, which did not mention the president by name. “And the intimidating words and actions we have heard and seen must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession.””
…
“Trump has come down hard on Democratic-leaning law firms, signing executive orders and memos suspending security clearances and barring the federal government from hiring employees from firms like Perkins Coie and Covington and Burling. One firm initially in Trump’s crosshairs — Paul, Weiss — saw its sanctions lifted after agreeing to perform pro bono legal work for conservative clients and ending diversity policies.
The retribution tour has now made its way to Congress, with GOP Senate offices told to take note of the blacklisted firms in an email sent last Friday.”
…
““If lawyers do not speak, who will speak for our judges? Who will protect our bedrock of justice? If we do not speak now, when will we speak? Now is the time. That is why we stand together with the ABA in support of the rule of law,” the groups wrote.”
“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.””
“The Trump administration could be gearing up for broader warrantless immigration enforcement. Lawyers for the administration “have determined that an 18th-century wartime law the president has invoked to deport suspected members of a Venezuelan gang allows federal agents to enter homes without a warrant,” The New York Times reported on Thursday, which would effectively set “aside a key provision of the Fourth Amendment that requires a court order to search someone’s home.”
The “18th-century wartime law” in question is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which gives the president broad authority to detain and deport noncitizens during times of war. Trump invoked the law earlier this month to justify deporting alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. Members of the gang had “unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare” against Americans, Trump explained in an executive order.
“All such Alien Enemies, wherever found within any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are subject to summary apprehension,” the order continued. Senior Justice Department lawyers believe that language and the Alien Enemies Act’s historic applications mean “the government does not need a warrant to enter a home or premises to search for people believed to be members of that gang,” the Times reported.
The administration should think twice about acting on that interpretation, given the fallout over last weekend’s Alien Enemies Act–related deportations. An ICE official’s sworn affidavit “paint[ed] the picture of a Trump administration and ICE management that were determined to deport as many people as possible, no matter how tenuous the connection to Tren de Aragua or any crime,” wrote Reason’s Eric Boehm. Reports on the deportees suggest that many may have been sent to a Salvadoran prison for extremely flimsy reasons, including innocuous tattoos. It would’ve been far better for the government to assess those grounds for deportation in court hearings rather than whisking people out of the country and potentially making grave, life-altering mistakes.”
“There are many excellent reasons why Boasberg should not be impeached, including the fact that Boasberg’s judgment against Trump is both persuasive and well-grounded in the law. Trump may claim that he has the unilateral authority to deport alleged criminal aliens without due process. But the administration’s arguments in support of that sweeping claim fail to pass muster on multiple counts.
Under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, “whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government,” the president may direct the “removal” of “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized.”
Trump invoked that law in his March 15 proclamation ordering the “immediate apprehension, detention, and removal” of alleged members of the street gang Tren de Aragua, who are allegedly “conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States…in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela.”
Except there is no “declared war” between the United States and Venezuela. And while Trump and his allies have certainly promoted the idea of a rhetorical “invasion” of the U.S. by unlawfully present aliens, that is merely a talking point. Such rhetoric does not alter the plain text of the Alien Enemies Act, which refers to military invasions by a “foreign nation or government.” As James Madison explained in his “Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts,” published on January 7, 1800, “invasion is an operation of war.” The alleged crimes of the alleged members of a nonstate street gang do not magically become “an operation of war” just because the president says so in the hopes of unlocking extra powers.
Speaking of James Madison, he said that the role of the judiciary was to stand as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.” That description is probably as good of an explanation as any for why Trump, just like Roosevelt before him, is so eager to stop the courts from doing their job.”
“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.”
“Trump doesn’t have to do something dramatic like cancel the election in order to erode democracy. The relationship between democracy and autocracy is a spectrum, not a binary; for example, countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Turkey and Hungary still hold elections, but their leaders aren’t held meaningfully accountable by them (or by other mechanisms like the courts). A more realistic concern is that the U.S. will slide into what political scientists call “competitive authoritarianism,” in which democratic institutions still exist but they are regularly abused. Maybe the chief executive can’t just abolish the other branches of government, the free press and other tools of accountability for fear of being seen as illegitimate, but he can find ways to weaken or circumvent them. And while the incumbent party still must face elections — and can even lose them — it makes every effort to tilt the electoral playing field in its favor.”
…
“some of these things wouldn’t be new for Trump. During his first term, he fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading an investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia. He purged the Republican Party of his critics by endorsing their opponents in primaries. And of course, he sowed distrust in the results of the 2020 election and attempted to overturn former President Joe Biden’s win. But that’s just the point: According to some political scientists, Trump’s actions during his first term already meet the definition of democratic erosion.”
“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.”