What Republican, Democratic judges said about Trump's law firm orders
Below are highlights from the rulings, which said President Donald Trump illegally restricted the firms' business in retaliation for cases they took or attorneys they hired. The White House, which has not yet appealed the decisions, has called the orders a legitimate exercise of presidential authority.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, ruling for Susman Godfrey:
--'The Order goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The Order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law.'
--'Defendants do not point to any statutory authority that empowers the President to punish a law firm for its choice of clients, donations, or other speech, and the court is not aware of any law that would support such action.'
--"Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full."
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruling for WilmerHale:
--'The President, by issuing the Order, is wielding his authority to punish a law firm for engaging in litigation conduct the President personally disfavors.'
--'The Order is plainly motivated by the President's desire to retaliate against WilmerHale for its protected activity.'
--'The WilmerHale Order violates the separation of powers by attempting to usurp the Judiciary's authority to resolve cases and sanction abuses of the judicial process.'
--'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The founding fathers knew this!'
U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ruling for Jenner & Block:
--'It casts a chill over the whole of the legal profession, leaving lawyers around the country weighing the necessity of vigorous representation against the peril of crossing the federal government. The order's chilling effect is uniquely harmful for its focus on pro bono work.'
--'The serial executive orders targeting law firms have produced something of an organic experiment, control group and all, for how firms react to the orders and how they might escape them."
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, ruling for Perkins Coie:
--"The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system's fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era."
--"In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else."
--"If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Murdoch takes on Trump in press baron's last stand
When Rupert Murdoch stepped down as executive chairman of both News Corp and Fox just under two years ago, it was seen as a cautious first step into retirement for the nonagenarian media tycoon. Although still ultimately in charge of his empire, Murdoch has handed day-to-day responsibility over to his son Lachlan. Meanwhile, he has focused his attention on succession planning, including a bitter legal battle with his own children over the family trust. But any suggestion that Murdoch might slide into a quiet dotage now appears premature. Donald Trump's $10bn (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), is aimed squarely at Murdoch himself. The legal challenge is the latest salvo in Trump's increasingly aggressive assault on the media. It also sets up what will likely be a final battle for the world's best-known newspaper tycoon – and one that could define his legacy. As one of his former executives puts it: 'The American president has taken on Rupert Murdoch, an extraordinary media force for the last 50 years ... It's a box office story.' Trump's lawsuit relates to a WSJ story alleging that Trump sent the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein a 'bawdy' birthday card complete with a drawing of a naked woman. Trump, who called the Journal's editor Emma Tucker from Air Force One in an effort to shut down the story, has branded it 'fake' and is seeking $10bn in damages. Trump has sniped at Murdoch, insisting the tycoon wants to settle. In a further provocation, lawyers for Trump last week filed a motion demanding an expedited deposition of Murdoch, citing the fact that the mogul is 94 and 'has suffered from multiple health issues throughout his life'. The scale of these alleged health issues was laid bare in a 2023 Vanity Fair article. It revealed Murdoch had been taken to hospital with a severe case of Covid-19, alongside several other incidents. Alex DeGroote, a media analyst, says the prospect of a trial in which Murdoch would have to take the stand is 'surely not a prospect Dow Jones and the WSJ want to entertain'. He adds that the tycoon may have been shaken by his recent legal clash with Dominion Voting Systems. In a case that signalled the end of Murdoch's cordial relations with Trump, Fox in 2023 agreed to pay $787m to settle a lawsuit with the voting machine company after the channel repeated the president's false claims that the 2020 election was rigged. That said, Murdoch would have a decent chance of success in any legal battle. Unlike in Britain, US libel laws are stacked in favour of the defendant. Trump will have to prove 'actual malice', meaning the WSJ knew the story was false and deliberately published it anyway. It is a high bar for Alejandro Brito, the Miami-based sole practitioner Trump has hired to represent him, to meet. Mark Stephens, a media lawyer at Howard Kennedy, says there are 'fundamental flaws' in Trump's lawsuit and it is likely to be thrown out, potentially as a Slapp [strategic lawsuit against public participation]. 'The case seems designed to try and chill down discussion of this topic, so you're trying to prevent public discussion of this issue and that has all the hallmarks of a Slapp,' he says. Yet it comes amid an increasingly aggressive assault on the media by Trump. The president has said the mainstream media is 'on notice' after securing settlements from both ABC and CBS in recent lawsuits. Alongside the financial and reputational implications, Trump can also cause problems outside the courtroom, as demonstrated by the move to ban the WSJ from a recent press trip to Scotland. The decision by CBS to capitulate in a $16m lawsuit filed by Trump has been widely interpreted as a way of securing approval for an $8bn takeover of its parent company Paramount. Stephen Colbert branded the settlement a 'big fat bribe' and was axed from the network shortly afterwards. By contrast, though, many believe Murdoch will not roll over and that the WSJ will stand by its reporting. '[Trump] assumes someone will settle and pay him an improbable amount of money, and I suspect that's not Murdoch,' says Stephens. The former executive adds: 'So many people think that Murdoch is the suppressor of a free press. Here you've got a very good example of the fourth estate standing up to the American president.' The source also points to the fact that two key figures – Robert Thomson, the Australian News Corp boss, and Emma Tucker, the British editor of the Journal – may be more willing to stand up to the US head of state than their American colleagues. Another senior figure who previously worked at News Corp agrees that Murdoch will 'close ranks' in defence. 'When you work there you're constantly under attack internally, except when something like this happens,' the executive says. 'They tend to fight hard amongst themselves in normal times, but when there's a crisis they say, 'We're backing you 100 per cent.'' Murdoch's support is not always longstanding, however. James Harding, the former Times editor who now runs The Observer, was quietly pushed out in late 2012 – reportedly after the tycoon baulked at his support for Obama in the presidential election. Could Tucker face a similar fate? It is far from the first time that Murdoch – a key inspiration for Logan Roy, the ruthless media patriarch in HBO hit Succession – has courted controversy or gone into battle against powerful foes. His reputation was cemented during the Wapping dispute, a year-long stand-off with print workers in 1986 in which the tycoon eventually broke the powerful unions. Perhaps most notorious, however, were revelations that journalists at the News of the World had eavesdropped on private messages. While Murdoch has always insisted that he did not know phone hacking was going on at his publication, he was forced to shutter the tabloid and his UK publishing empire has paid out more than £1bn in compensation and other related costs to victims. In the Murdoch empire, even family members are not off-limits in pursuit of victory in business. The patriarch last year clashed with three of his children – Prudence, Elisabeth and James – over his attempt to change the family trust to hand over complete control to Lachlan. Following a high-profile legal battle that drew comparisons to Succession, Murdoch was ultimately defeated, setting the scene for an almighty tussle over his legacy. But his battle with Trump highlights the conflicting positions Murdoch is required to hold as the owner of news outlets that are, variously, sycophantic to Trump and doggedly determined to hold him to account. What's more, it raises fundamental questions about whether it is his commercial interests or passion for journalism that will ultimately win out. Murdoch once claimed that the reputation of his media outlets was 'more important than the last hundred million dollars'. Yet the tycoon has previously been accused of cosying up to China's communist regime and indulging censors in Beijing in an effort to protect his business interests. Ahead of his takeover of Dow Jones in 2007, a group of China-based WSJ writers accused the mogul of 'sacrificing journalistic integrity to satisfy personal and political aims'. In 1998, he ordered publisher HarperCollins to kill a book by Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last British governor, because of its critical stance towards Beijing. In his latest legal battle, it is not Chinese authorities that Murdoch must be sensitive to, but his own Trump-supporting audiences. In a sign that Murdoch is looking to expand his influence in new areas, News Corp this week unveiled plans to open a new outpost of the New York Post based in Los Angeles. Robert Thomson, the News Corp boss, vowed the new title, dubbed The California Post, would be an 'antidote to the jaundiced, jaded journalism that has sadly proliferated'. Playing both sides While Dow Jones has said it will 'vigorously defend' against any lawsuit, both Fox and the New York Post have remained silent on the issue, suggesting Murdoch may be trying to play both sides. DeGroote says: 'Would it be in his commercial interest to wreck the relationship between his own viewers, his own readers and his titles by being seen to pursue an anti-Trump agenda?' The WSJ is by no means a struggling newspaper business. It had more than 4.3 million subscribers at the end of March, while Dow Jones posted quarterly revenues of $31m. Fox, which pulled in $1.6bn from its cable network in the same three month period, remains the real money-spinner, however. While British broadcasters are struggling to retain viewers in the streaming age, Fox News continues to dominate the US ratings with an average primetime audience of 2.6 million in the second quarter. At the same time, it has been making advances in its digital offering. Fox recently struck a licensing deal with Ruthless, a popular podcast hosted by Republican influencers, while it is set to launch a new streaming service this autumn. Murdoch's supporters argue that he will not be swayed by commercial interests. 'The value of those companies has only grown and I think he takes a really long view – certainly long for someone who's 94 years old,' says the former News Corp executive. Others believe Trump's decision to take on the mogul will backfire. Stephens says: 'By taking this suit he's potentially putting the entire Murdoch press offside. Is that sensible for a Republican president? Essentially the megaphone to Trump's base is held by Rupert Murdoch.' He adds that this is an example of the so-called Streisand effect, where efforts to cover something up only result in greater public awareness. It is not lost on many, however, that Murdoch may prove to be the last true press baron. The role of the newspaper proprietor has traditionally been a powerful one, steering a title's editorial direction and wielding influence over presidents and prime ministers. William Randolph Hearst, the inspiration for the titular character in Orson Welles' classic film Citizen Kane, is often considered to have helped push the US into the Spanish-American war at the end of the 19th century thanks to sensationalist reporting in his tabloids. Lord Beaverbrook, the Canadian-British newspaper publisher whose empire included the Daily Express, has taken credit for the downfall of David Lloyd George's post-war government in 1922. Murdoch must now decide whether he is up for a blockbuster fight with the president that would almost certainly define his legacy as a newspaper man. His stance will also be crucial for Tucker, whom he elevated from editorship of The Sunday Times to lead the WSJ newsroom in 2023. The Briton's willingness to make difficult decisions appears to have impressed Murdoch and she is generally well-regarded at the US newspaper, despite a backlash last year, when journalists plastered her office in Post-it notes in protest against job cuts. That was a minor skirmish from which she emerged unscathed. The stakes for Tucker now, as she comes under Trump's legal assault, could scarcely be higher. For Murdoch, the reputation he has cast for himself over decades as a bulwark of a free press is on the line. Murdoch's status is unique. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, is undoubtedly a mogul and a far wealthier one, but with tech rather than media values. His tendency to intervene in his publication in ways that have pleased Trump has already come under scrutiny. 'This is the last of the big tycoons in newspapers,' says Murdoch's former lieutenant. 'There's just a lot less money to be made in newspapers than there was and so it won't produce these very powerful media tycoons in a world where the media landscape is pretty fragmented and atomised.' 'Any number of people might have more money than Murdoch and they might even desire to have that level of influence, but they may not know how to do it. It's a skill to remain relevant and ultimately what he's done is stay relevant.' As a result, the newspaper proprietor in its traditional sense – as a wielder of political power and influence – seems an endangered species. So as Murdoch faces down the president of the United States, it may be the last stand for the last press baron.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Texas Democrats leave state to block Republican gerrymandering efforts
Democratic lawmakers left Texas in an attempt to prevent voting on a Republican plan to redraw the state's congressional districts. By redrawing district lines, Republicans hope to flip five congressional seats held by Democrats. This would protect the party's narrow House of Representatives majority in next year's midterm elections
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Oil little changed as OPEC+ output hikes counter Russia disruption concerns
Aug 5 (Reuters) - Oil prices were little changed on Tuesday as traders assessed rising supply by OPEC+ against worries of weaker demand and U.S. President Donald Trump's new threats on India over its Russian oil purchases. Brent crude futures dipped 1 cent to $68.75 a barrel by 0631 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was down 2 cents at $66.28. Both contracts fell by more than 1% in the previous session to settle at their lowest in a week. Both benchmarks have receded because extra capacity from OPEC+ is acting as a buffer for any shortfalls in Russian supplies, said Priyanka Sachdeva, a senior market analyst at Phillip Nova. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, together known as OPEC+, agreed on Sunday to raise oil production by 547,000 barrels per day for September. It marks a full and early reversal of the group's largest tranche of output cuts, amounting to about 2.5 million bpd, or around 2.4% of global demand, though analysts caution the actual amount returning to the market will be less. The rising supplies come amid renewed concerns about demand, with some analysts expecting faltering economic growth in the second half of the year. JPMorgan analysts said on Tuesday the risk of a U.S. recession was high as labour demand has stalled. In addition, China's July Politburo meeting signalled no additional policy easing, with the focus shifting to structural rebalancing of the world's second-largest economy, the analysts wrote in a note. At the same time, investors are eyeing possible supply disruptions. U.S. President Donald Trump has said he could impose 100% secondary tariffs on Russian crude buyers such as India after announcing a 25% tariff on Indian imports in July. On Monday, Trump again threatened higher tariffs on Indian goods over the Russian oil purchases. New Delhi called his attack "unjustified" and vowed to protect its economic interests, deepening the trade rift between the two countries. India is the biggest buyer of seaborne crude from Russia, importing about 1.75 million bpd from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by trade sources. Traders are also awaiting any developments on the latest U.S. tariffs on its trading partners, which analysts fear could slow economic growth and dampen fuel demand.
