US President Donald Trump published a proclamation to the Wilmerhale law firm on Thursday, one of a handful of important companies that aims to have the connections to his legal or political opponents.
The proclamation quoted Wilmerhale’s connections to Robert Mueller, the former US special consultant, who examined Russian contacts with Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Like three earlier executive regulations that Trump have issued against other companies, the proclamation suspended the security checks held by lawyers in Wilmerhale, limited their access to government officials and ordered a review that was concluded to terminate the federal contracts concluded by the customers of the company.
A Wilmerhale spokesman said Trump’s proclamation was illegal and resembled an earlier arrangement that was “prescribed by a federal judge”.
Mueller withdrew from the company in 2021 after a “long, respected career in the public service”, said the spokesman. Mueller could not be reached immediately for a comment.
The White House did not immediately answer a request for comments.
AGS warn of “terrifying effect”
A day earlier, the Attorney General condemned what they described as a “terrifying effect” of Trump’s executive regulations for law firms in several democratic states on Wednesday, and demanded the indictment against federal judges, which characterized ongoing attacks as retaliation against political opponents.
In an “open letter to the legal community”, they described more than 20 general prosecutor from states across the country and in Washington, DC, said that the measures were “a clear threat to our judicial system and our profession”.
After US President Donald Trump, his advisor Elon Musk and some Republican legislators called up to complain about the judges due to unfavorable decisions, the Supreme Court of John Robert’s Supreme Court submitted a rare public statement and said that the appeal procedure exists to react to legal differences.
Presidential measures that are directed against law firms have “retaliated over ideological differences and punishment for the actions of individual lawyers who punish the customers who are disadvantageous to the president and his supporters”, says the letter.
The General Prosecutor’s Administrative Attorney has the decision by Paul Weiss, a Republican, in an exchange against the President, who contradicts an executive regulation against the law firm, an alarm from the decision to negotiate an agreement with Trump.
Paul Weiss included the conditions that included a promise of the equivalent of 40 million US dollars in the free legal work to support “mutually agreed” administrative projects such as combating anti -Semitism and supporting veterans.
The chairman of Paul Weiss, Brad Karp, defended the deal in news to colleagues and claimed that Trump’s executive regulation risked customers who the law firm as “persona non grata” of the administration and “can easily destroy our law firm”. He said the Trump government would not determine the legal work that the leading company would do as part of the agreement.
Judge breaks Trump Administration “allusions”
An executive regulation against Perkin’s Coie included a laundry list from Trump’s complaints, especially in connection with the company’s work for the campaign of the Democratic Hillary Clinton, its election rival 2016.
Perkin’s Coie calls for the order that is directed.
A US judge rejected exactly this lawsuit on Wednesday after the government had accused it for prejudices.
The US district judge Beryl Howell said that a registration that was aiming for her withdrawal was “full of allusions” and was not “almost the standard for disqualification”.
In the submission of the department, Howell’s earlier comments were determined in cases against Trump supporters from January 6, 2021, the attack on the US Capitol and its treatment of disputes in connection with the investigation of the federal government after his first term.
Howell said that the Trump government’s criticism “reflects a serious misunderstanding of our constitutional order.”
Richard Primus, a professor of constitutional law from the University of Michigan, who used to work at Jenner & Block, said Trump’s various orders are trying to demonstrate that lawyers will suffer if they oppose the interests of the president.
“Some of them are a revenge program,” said Primus.
“He does not recognize the category of legitimate opposition,” he added. “If you are against me, your actions are illegitimate and you should avoid, punish and criminalize.”
Trump’s command with Jenner & Block criticized his legal work, which supported the protection of rights for transgender people and immigrants. The order accused the company of pursuing “partisan destinations”.
One of the former partners of the company, Andrew Weissmann, was a leading prosecutor for the team of the former special consultant Robert Mueller.
Jenner & Block said on Tuesday that “all appropriate remedies” to challenge Trump’s command.
Covington & Burling was hit last month with a closer order that cited Jack Smith’s representation by the firm, the special consultant, who brought two criminal charges against Trump and the decision was essentially ended by the republican election on November 5.
The Trump administration deported more than 200 immigrants by lying a measure of war measures on the law on the Alien enemies – they claimed that they were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezolan gang. Andrew Chang explains how Trump interprets the language of the Law of 1798 to avoid the standard immigration court system, and why experts say it is a slippery slope.
The Attorney General also condemned calls from Trump, his billionaire, Elon Musk and several Republican legislators because he charged federal judges who decided against the administration and in some cases blocked the executive commands.
Trump hit the US district judge James Boasberg in Washington, who prevented him from deporting the Venezuelan migrants in times of war.
Task Force formed to ensure the security of the judges
Since the end of January, Musk has evaluated in more than 30 social media posts in his social media page X in more than 30 social media contributions and described them “corrupt” or “evil” and mocked what he described as “Tyranny of the judiciary” after the judges blocked parts of a federal downsizing measure.
Such calls and other criticisms have meant that federal judges experienced an alarmed alarm in response to rising threats directed against them.
The US Federal Justice launched a cross -party task force on Wednesday that focused on ensuring continued security and independence of the courts, as can be seen from a memo certified by Reuters.
While some Trump allies openly criticized the judges, conservative lawyers who nominated to the Supreme Court were also threatened.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh was the goal of a alleged attempt at assassination in 2022. Nicholas Roske, the accused, was brought to trial in June in this case.
At the beginning of this month, the police were also called to the home of the sister of the judiciary Amy Coney Barrett after a bomb threat to the address. Ultimately, no bomb was found.
