Judge Blocks Trump's Executive Order Against Jenner & Block, Citing First Amendment Violations
A federal judge ruled Trump's executive order against Jenner & Block unconstitutional, emphasizing retaliation for the firm's legal work and First Amendment rights.
Judge blocks executive order targeting Jenner & Block law firm
Washington Examiner
Overview
U.S. District Judge John Bates permanently blocked President Trump's executive order against Jenner & Block, declaring it unconstitutional retaliation for the firm's legal work. Bates criticized the order for infringing on First Amendment rights and noted it targeted the firm due to its advocacy and past employment of a lawyer involved in the Mueller investigation. This ruling follows a similar decision against Perkins Coie, highlighting ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and law firms opposing its policies. Bates also pointed out that some firms preemptively negotiated with the administration to avoid sanctions.
Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.
Get both sides in 5 minutes with our daily newsletter.
Analysis
Left
The articles criticize Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, labeling them unconstitutional and retaliatory.
Judicial rulings emphasize the importance of legal representation and separation of powers against Trump's actions.
Overall, the sentiment reflects strong disapproval of the administration's attempts to undermine legal institutions.
Center
The article presents a positive tone regarding the judicial ruling against Trump's executive order.
It emphasizes the protection of constitutional rights and the importance of legal representation.
The judge's decision is seen as a victory for independent legal counsel.
Right
The articles present a negative view of President Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, emphasizing their unconstitutional nature.
Concerns are raised about the implications for legal representation and the separation of powers due to these orders.
Judicial pushback and a judge's ruling highlight the retaliatory intent behind the administration's actions.
Left
The articles criticize Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, labeling them unconstitutional and retaliatory.
Judicial rulings emphasize the importance of legal representation and separation of powers against Trump's actions.
Overall, the sentiment reflects strong disapproval of the administration's attempts to undermine legal institutions.
Center
The article presents a positive tone regarding the judicial ruling against Trump's executive order.
It emphasizes the protection of constitutional rights and the importance of legal representation.
The judge's decision is seen as a victory for independent legal counsel.
Right
The articles present a negative view of President Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, emphasizing their unconstitutional nature.
Concerns are raised about the implications for legal representation and the separation of powers due to these orders.
Judicial pushback and a judge's ruling highlight the retaliatory intent behind the administration's actions.
Articles (10)
MSNBC·22d·"…Bates called the order 'doubly violative of the Constitution.'"
TPM·22d·"…This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers."
The Guardian·22d·"…Bates did not mince words when calling a Trump executive order unconstitutional, which sought to target Jenner & Block."
CNN·22d·"…The lengthy ruling from Bates was particularly critical of how Trump’s order would negatively impact the firm’s ability to do pro bono work on behalf of clients it wants to take on."
NBC News·22d·"…U.S. District Judge John Bates said going after law firms the way Trump has 'is doubly violative of the Constitution' because it targets Jenner & Block due to the causes the firm champions."
Chicago Tribune·22d·"…The ruling from U.S. District Judge John Bates marks the second time this month that a judge has struck down a Trump executive order against a prominent firm."
CBS News·22d·"…U.S. District Judge John Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and is based in Washington, D.C., said the executive order is "violative of the Constitution" and found that the order infringes on the First, Fifth and Sixth amendments."
Associated Press·22d·"…The ruling from U.S. District Judge John Bates marks the second time this month that a judge has struck down a Trump executive order against a prominent firm."
Boston Herald·22d·"…The ruling from U.S. District Judge John Bates marks the second time this month that a judge has struck down a Trump executive order against a prominent firm."
Washington Examiner·22d·"…The struck-down executive orders are some of the various ones targeting law firms linked to the Democratic Party, along with firms that had been adversarial toward Trump."
FAQ
History
- 22d9 articles