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
Subscribe to unlock this story
We really don't like cutting you off, but you've reached your monthly limit. At just $5/month, subscriptions are how we keep this project going. Start your free 7-day trial today!
Get StartedHave an account? Sign in
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.
Report issue
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
- 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.
Articles (10)
Center (4)
FAQ
President Trump targeted Jenner & Block because the firm had employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor who worked on Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and due to the firm’s advocacy and clients, which were perceived as opposing the administration.
Judge Bates ruled that the executive order violated the First Amendment by singling out Jenner & Block on the basis of its legal advocacy, client representation, and the past employment of an attorney involved in investigating election interference.
Yes, several other law firms have faced similar executive orders. Many have reached deals with the administration, pledging nearly $1 billion to pro bono work to avoid sanctions, while others, like WilmerHale, have sued.
History
- 4M
6 articles