令人震惊的转变,司法部突然重提对律师事务所的制裁计划。
In Stunning Flip-Flop, DOJ Suddenly Revives Bid To Sanction Law Firms

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/doj-drops-bid-revive-executive-orders-targeting-law-firms

美国司法部已撤回对其关于唐纳德·特朗普制裁四家律师事务所——Jenner & Block、WilmerHale、Perkins Coie 和 Susman Godfrey 的行政命令的上诉。就在最初撤销推翻这些命令的裁决上诉的动议一天后,司法部现在打算为其辩护。 特朗普的2025年命令以“党派代表”滥用公益法律服务为由,将矛头指向这些事务所,并指示各机构审查安全许可、终止合同以及限制进入政府大楼。这些事务所提起诉讼,认为这些命令是对其第一修正案权利的违宪报复,并在初审法院初步获胜。 司法部最初撤回上诉的举动没有解释,引发了律师事务所的欢庆。然而,该部门现在声称,在等待先前驳回请求的裁决期间,继续推进这些案件在其权限范围内。这些事务所坚持认为,这些命令是非法的,并威胁着法治。

相关文章

原文

Update (1400ET): In a stunning flip-flop, just 24 hours after The Justice Department said it was dropping its appeal of four trial-court rulings that struck down Trump’s sanctions against law firms Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey, the DoJ told a court Tuesday that it plans to press forward with the defense of President Trump’s executive orders sanctioning law firms

The Wall Street Journal reports that the department said in a court filing that the federal appeals court in Washington hadn’t yet ruled on its request the previous day to dismiss the cases - and that it was the administration’s prerogative to instead pursue them further.

Judges across the ideological spectrum had ruled that the president’s attempts to punish law firms amounted to unconstitutional retaliation.

* * *

s Aldgra Fredly reported earlier for The Epoch Times, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion on March 2 seeking to drop its appeals of lower court decisions that struck down President Donald Trump’s executive orders sanctioning four law firms.

In its motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the DOJ said it decided to “voluntarily dismiss” its appeals of rulings that sided with law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (WilmerHale).

The DOJ did not provide any explanation for the decision in its filing.

Trump issued the orders in March 2025. They stated that the firms abused their pro bono practice “to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States,” citing alleged “partisan representations” and other factors.

The orders directed all executive departments and agencies to suspend security clearances of individuals at the law firms while those clearances were being reviewed to see whether they aligned with the national interest, terminate any contracts with the law firms, and limit their employees’ access to government buildings.

The four law firms filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s orders, arguing that the orders were unconstitutional and violated their First Amendment rights. Federal judges handling the cases subsequently ruled in favor of the firms and struck down the orders last year.

The Trump administration reached deals with nine other law firms targeted by Trump’s orders, which agreed to provide pro bono legal services to the White House and to uphold “fairness in the justice system.”

In response to the DOJ’s latest filing, Jenner & Block said the decision “makes permanent the rulings” of four federal judges who found the president’s executive orders were unconstitutional.

“Our partnership is proud to have stood firm on behalf of its clients, and we look forward to continuing to serve them—guided by these bedrock values—for many decades to come,” the firm said in a March 2 statement.

Susman Godfrey said the filing indicates the government is no longer trying to defend what the firm deemed an “indefensible executive order” by Trump.

“The Government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law,” Susman Godfrey said in a statement. “And we won.”

Perkins Coie said the DOJ’s dismissal of its appeal “means the district court’s decision stands as a final order, protecting core constitutional freedoms such as free speech, due process, and the right to select counsel without fear of retribution.”

WilmerHale said in a statement that it was pleased with the government’s decision.

“As we said from the outset, our challenge to the unlawful Executive Order was about ⁠defending our clients’ constitutional right to retain the counsel of their choosing and defending the rule of law,” it said.

Loading recommendations...

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com