Donald Trump’s efforts to defend the executive orders targeting Biglaw firms that have earned his ire are loser cases. Four different district court judges from across the political spectrum have all ruled that EOs aimed at Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, respectively, are unconstitutional on a variety of grounds. Yet, the administration is appealing the Jenner & Block case, and the WilmerHale case, and the Perkins Coie one too. So, not terribly surprising that, on Friday, the Department of Justice filed an appeal in the fourth Biglaw EO case — the one targeting Susman Godfrey.
Susman’s spokesperson came out swinging in response to the appeal, saying, “The courts have spoken clearly and decisively: the administration’s executive orders targeting law firms violate the Constitution and undermine Americans’ right to choose a lawyer without fear. Susman Godfrey challenged this order because we believe in the rule of law. That belief continues to guide us as we fight the administration’s unwarranted appeal and continue to defend the rights of our clients and our colleagues.”
But the rub is that the Supreme Court is disturbingly willing to eschew legal norms and bend over backwards for Trump, so what should be an easy call at the High Court becomes an open question. And Trump is hoping to capitalize on that and is pushing to get in front of his favorite justices. These EOs are pretty obviously an affront to legal institutions and the very rule of law — let’s hope the majority of the Court sees that too.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].