Magats_Love_NHB
Let It Burn!
Judge obliterates Trump EO targeting Perkins Coie. The court found the executive order “unlawful because it violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” and “therefore null and void.”
'Null and void': Judge forcefully rejects Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie
"Settling personal vendettas by targeting a disliked business or individual for punitive government action is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President."
lawandcrime.com
“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,'” Howell writes. “Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”
While viewing the 45th and 47th president’s attacks on Perkins Coie as part of a “broader campaign” against disfavored law firms, the court slightly updates the Shakespearean verse to accommodate the present moment.
“In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ EO 14230 takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else,” Howell adds.
The judge’s opinion paints an image of a presidency adorned with and seeking power — and using the presidential prerogative in an effort to attain evermore, albeit unconstitutionally.
“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution,” the opinion goes on. “The Supreme Court has long made clear that ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics … or other matters of opinion.’ Simply put, government officials ‘cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’ That, however, is exactly what is happening here.”
In this case, Howell has consistently rejected the government’s efforts as violative of the First and Fifth Amendments.
EO 14230, the accompanying fact sheet, and the context surrounding the Order’s issuance each express President Trump’s disapproval of plaintiff’s First Amendment activity and demonstrate that EO 14230 targeted plaintiff because the Firm expressed support for employment policies the President does not like, represented clients the President does not like, represented clients seeking litigation results the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some of the President’s actions, which he also does not like,” Howell observes. “That is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.”
The court frames the Trump administration’s anti-law firm efforts as an “unprecedented attack” on U.S. principles.
“The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era,” Howell muses. “In 1770, John Adams made the singularly unpopular decision to represent eight British soldiers charged with murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre and ‘claimed later to have suffered the loss of more than half his practice.’ …When the Bill of Rights was ratified, these principles were codified into the Constitution.”
