Why The Legal Profession Needs To Resist Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Intimidation Tactics

On Friday, US District Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14230.

Article continues aft advertisement

In a 102-page opinion, Howell lays retired this takedown successful painstaking, unequivocal item galore of america already knew instinctively: that utilizing nan powerfulness of nan presidency to punish lawyers for representing governmental opponents is not only unethical—it’s flagrantly unconstitutional.

But let’s talk astir what’s really astatine liking here.

This ruling isn’t conscionable a one-time judicial rebuke of an out-of-control executive. It’s a reflector held up to Big Law, nan largest, astir prestigious, and highest-grossing rule firms successful nan nation. And what it reflects is damning. The truth that truthful galore of these ultra-powerful firms sat connected their hands—or worse, softly folded—while Trump signed an executive bid targeting Perkins Coie, should profoundly interest anyone who cares astir nan independency of nan ineligible occupation and nan norm of law. Big Law should person seen this coming and each 1 of them should person stood up.

Instead, they blinked.

Let’s beryllium clear: Perkins Coie was not targeted for immoderate misconduct. They were targeted because they dared to correspond Hillary Clinton and were progressive successful litigation Trump politically opposed—specifically, voting authorities cases that didn’t align pinch his agenda. That is simply a textbook maltreatment of power. The executive bid went aft nan firm’s expertise to support information clearances, entree national officials, and proceed moving pinch authorities contractors—essentially, an effort to destruct their expertise to usability successful nan ineligible ecosystem simply because of who they represented.

It was governmental payback. Petty. Dangerous. And, arsenic Judge Howell confirmed, absurdly and transparently unconstitutional.

This should person triggered an immediate, thunderous consequence from nan ineligible community. Every patient that believes successful nan adversarial system—where lawyers are ethically bound to correspond clients, sloppy of popularity—should person rallied astir Perkins Coie. But that’s not what happened. For nan astir part, Big Law firms remained silent, issuing cautiously worded statements (if they said thing astatine all), while softly hoping nan large wind would walk without affecting their ain authorities activity aliases bottommost line.

By not pushing backmost difficult against this executive overreach, nan country’s astir powerful firms group a chilling precedent.

This isn’t astir defending 1 rule firm. It’s astir defending nan rule that nary lawyer—regardless of who they represent—should beryllium punished by nan authorities for doing their job.

And this is wherever Big Law grounded itself.

Because by not pushing backmost difficult against this executive overreach, nan country’s astir powerful firms group a chilling precedent: that nan president tin usage nan machinery of nan national authorities to retaliate against lawyers and firms for taking politically inconvenient cases—and that nan ineligible manufacture will look nan different way.

Imagine what this intends going forward. If this maneuver had succeeded, it would person opened nan doorway for early administrations—of either party—to blacklist, threaten, aliases cripple rule firms that return up causes they disagree with. Today it’s voting rights. Tomorrow, it could beryllium biology groups. Or whistleblowers. Or weapon authorities activists. Or migrant families. The threat isn’t connected which broadside of nan governmental spectrum you’re on—the threat is successful allowing immoderate president to judge they tin soundlessness opposing voices by going aft nan lawyers who springiness them opinionated successful court.

This strikes astatine nan very bosom of what it intends to beryllium a lawyer successful a democracy.

Judge Howell’s sentiment quoted Shakespeare’s “Let’s termination each nan lawyers”—a statement often misunderstood, but present utilized pinch bitter irony. Trump didn’t virtually telephone for violence, but he tried to do thing conscionable arsenic corrosive: nonstop a awesome that lawyers who situation him will suffer professionally successful a imperishable and irrevocable way. The accusation was unmistakable: if you’re not pinch me, you’re expendable. That’s not conscionable bullying. That’s authoritarian.

Howell’s ruling, thankfully, was a powerful affirmation that our Constitution still has teeth. She rightly concluded that nan bid violated nan First Amendment by punishing protected speech. That it trampled nan Fifth by depriving group of owed process. That it shredded nan Sixth by interfering pinch a client’s correct to take their counsel. And that it was, successful its conception and execution, an egregious maltreatment of executive power.

But let’s not dress that this triumph unsocial authorities nan ship. The harm is already done—not conscionable to Perkins Coie, but to Big Law arsenic a group. Because if rule firms only find their backbone aft nan judiciary steps in, past they’ve already abdicated their role. The ineligible organization is expected to beryllium nan first statement of defense against executive overreach. Not nan last.

What this infinitesimal required was courage. Not conscionable from judges, but from lawyers—from firms pinch power and prestige who should person said, “This is unacceptable.” It required amicus briefs, op-eds, property conferences, and corporate action. It required rule firms putting their values supra their national contracts. It required nan occupation to put its corporate ft down and say: “This crosses a line. We guidelines pinch immoderate lawyer targeted for doing their job.”

Instead, astir firms softly calculated nan consequence and decided it wasn’t worthy it. That calculation whitethorn person been bully business, but it was unspeakable citizenship. And worse, it sent a connection to early presidents that nan ineligible occupation tin beryllium intimidated. That if you target 1 firm, nan remainder will enactment silent.

That should terrify each lawyer successful America.

Because if lawyers tin beryllium silenced, truthful tin nan clients they represent. And if practice becomes a governmental liability, past justness becomes a partisan game.

So what then—when this lawsuit climbs nan appellate ladder, and nan DC Circuit aliases moreover nan Supreme Court reverses Judge Howell’s ruling, arsenic is wholly imaginable fixed nan existent constitution of nan judiciary?

What will we opportunity astir nan domiciled of nan ineligible occupation successful opinionated up to earthy power—not aft nan fact, not erstwhile it’s safe, but successful nan infinitesimal erstwhile it matters most? If nan courts neglect to uphold these law protections, past it falls moreover much squarely connected lawyers and rule firms to take sides nan statement betwixt practice and retribution.

That intends refusing to fold, refusing to stay silent, and refusing to normalize nan thought that governmental loyalty is simply a prerequisite for ineligible legitimacy. Howell’s ruling whitethorn beryllium overturned, but nan precedent group by nan ineligible profession’s inaction will remain—and that should haunt everyone who useful successful Big Law and still believes successful nan norm of law.