Latest news with #LorenAliKhan
Bloomberg
14 hours ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Fourth Trump Executive Order Against Law Firm Nullified by Judge
A DC federal judge has struck down President Donald Trump's executive order targeting Houston-founded law firm Susman Godfrey, marking the fourth takedown of an executive order targeting a law firm. US District Court Judge Loren AliKhan said Friday the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.
Washington Post
14 hours ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries.
CBS News
16 hours ago
- Business
- CBS News
Judge finds Trump executive order punishing Susman Godfrey law firm unconstitutional
Washington — A federal judge on Friday struck down President Trump's executive order that sought to punish the law firm Susman Godfrey, ruling that it is unconstitutional and blocking the administration from enforcing it. The decision from U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan caps an unbroken streak of victories for the four major law firms that were targeted by Mr. Trump as part of his efforts to go after his perceived enemies and chose to challenge his directives in court, rather than commit millions of dollars in free legal services, as nine other firms have done. The president's executive orders aimed to sanction the firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and Susman Godfrey by going after their clients, access to federal buildings and employees, and security clearances held by their employees. Each of the four firms filed lawsuits arguing the orders violated the Constitution, and four different judges have skipped trials and ruled in their favor. The Trump administration has not appealed any of the decisions so far. AliKhan said in her ruling that Mr. Trump's executive order regarding Susman Godfrey violated the First and Fifth Amendments. The order, she said, "is unconstitutional from beginning to end." "Here, the Order goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States," the judge wrote. "The Order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law." Mr. Trump signed the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey in April, which claimed that the firm "spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections." The firm, which has 350 employees, represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News. The suit was filed in response to unfounded claims aired by the network that Dominion helped rig the 2020 election against Mr. Trump. Fox News and Dominion reached a $787 million settlement agreement in 2023. The president's executive orders against the four law firms all sought to inflict similar harms, including by suspending active security clearances held by their employees, requiring government contractors to disclose any business with the firms and limiting government employees from engaging with their employees. The orders also restricted their access to federal buildings. Susman Godfrey, like the three others, sued the Trump administration shortly after the executive order was signed, arguing that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Lawyers for the firm said Mr. Trump's directive was "unprecedented and unconstitutional" and part of "an express campaign of retaliation for representing clients and causes he disfavors or employing lawyers he dislikes." Indeed, Mr. Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie went after the firm for its representation of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and its hiring of a research firm that retained former British spy Christopher Steele, who produced the infamous "Steele Dossier." His attempts to punish Jenner & Block and WilmerHale both invoked lawyers who worked on the Justice Department's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. At WilmerHale, that was Robert Mueller, the special counsel who led the probe, and two lawyers who worked on his team, Aaron Zebley and James Quarles. For Jenner & Block, the lawyer was Andrew Weissmann, who also worked on the Russian meddling case. Mueller, Quarles and Weissmann each left their firms several years ago. But the firms have also been involved in litigation challenging policies rolled out during Mr. Trump's second term. WilmerHale is representing a group of inspectors general who were fired by the president at the start of his administration, and Jenner & Block is involved in a challenge Mr. Trump's efforts to withhold federal funds from medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to young people. Susman Godfrey continues to represent Dominion in defamation lawsuits arising out of baseless claims related to the 2020 election, including against Rudy Giuliani, conservative lawyer Sidney Powell and Newsmax. AliKhan, who was appointed to the district court by former President Joe Biden, had granted Susman Godfrey temporary relief in April and blocked the administration from enforcing parts of the executive order against the firm. Her final decision in favor of Susman Godfrey was not a surprise, since she had said at a hearing then that the executive order was "based on a personal vendetta" against the firm. "The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," she said in April. While the four firms have each successfully had the executive orders invalidated, other major firms have decided to enter into agreements with the president, seemingly to avoid being targeted themselves. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison was threatened with punishment in March, but Mr. Trump rescinded his executive order focusing on the firm after it committed to providing $40 million in pro bono work to support the administration's policies. Since then, eight more firms have reached deals with the White House that pledges of between $100 million and $125 million in free legal services. Mr. Trump has suggested using the law firms' promise of pro bono work to help the U.S. in trade negotiations over tariffs.
The Herald Scotland
16-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Senate keeps provision for curbing court orders in Trump bill
Some fellow Republicans in the narrowly divided Congress have said they would oppose the bill over the provision or that it would be removed through a parliamentary maneuver. But its inclusion in the Senate draft reflects the support of leadership to include and defend it. Legislation would require litigants to post bonds before courts could enforce orders The provision would require judges to collect bonds from litigants challenging the government before blocking policies through injunctions or temporary restraining orders. Without a bond, the provision would prevent judges from enforcing their orders through contempt proceedings. Judges have always been able to collect bonds in civil lawsuits, essentially to ensure that defendants are reimbursed if they eventually win their cases. But judges traditionally don't collect bonds in cases against the government because the disputes are over policy rather than money like in a lawsuit between two businesses. Trump and his Republican allies would like to change that. He signed a memo in March directing the Justice Department to ask for bonds in all civil cases against the administration. Judges have temporarily blocked dozens of his policies. If the legislation were enacted, it would undo those blocks until judges set bonds. Bonds could reach trillions of dollars in cases against government Judges could set a nominal bond of $1, according to legal experts. But if they set a larger bond that litigants couldn't afford, judges wouldn't be able to enforce their orders and the Trump administration could ignore them, experts said. In February, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan refused a request from Trump's White House Office of Management Budget to require a bond from the National Council of Nonprofits when she blocked the government from freezing all federal grants. She said it could have required trillions of dollars because that was how much was at stake in the case but that OMB would suffer no monetary damage from the case. "The court declines," Alikhan wrote. Some GOP lawmakers opposed the provision they weren't aware was in House-passed bill If the Senate changes the legislation, the House would have to vote on the bill again. Some GOP lawmakers have voiced opposition to the provision at raucous town halls. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said May 27 he was unaware of the provision and didn't support it when he voted for the bill. The House approved the bill on a 215-214 vote, so any potential loss of support could hurt the bill's chances. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said May 30 the bond provision "will not be" in the Senate-approved bill because she expected it to be removed by the parliamentarian under a rule requiring everything in the legislation to have an impact on the budget.
Associated Press
04-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Judge blocks Trump from dismantling agency that funds community groups in Latin American countries
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge agreed on Friday to block the Trump administration from dismantling an independent agency that distributes grant money to community development groups in Latin American and Caribbean countries. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the administration doesn't have the authority to remove the head of the Inter-American Foundation, which is governed by a bipartisan nine-member board. Congress created the foundation more than 50 years ago. It has disbursed $945 million to thousands of grant recipients in roughly three dozen countries. On Feb. 19, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for dramatically reducing the size of the federal government. It listed the IAF as one of the agencies targeted for cuts. Representatives of billionaire Trump advisor Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency showed up at the foundation's offices on Feb. 20. Several days later, the White House removed all of the agency's board members, fired Sara Aviel as president and CEO of the IAF and appointed Pete Marocco as the agency's acting board chair. Marocco later appointed himself as Aviel's temporary replacement.
