Who’s the thug? Felon Trump is the thug
As you read the following, keep in mind that Trump LOST almost every case over his election 4 years ago and continues to lie and mislead about it. Also
Second, a law firm named Perkins and Coie sued over Trump’s shakedown scheme about law firms. On Friday, US District Judge Beryl Howell issued permanent injunctive relief to them. Here is part of the PDF and why it matters what Felon Trump is attempting to do with ALL the law firms he just doesn’t happen to like.
Selected parts of Judge Howell’s memorandum opinion
No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in thislawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branchagencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, whopenned the phrase: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” W ILLIAM S HAKESPEARE,HENRY VI, P ART 2, act 4, sc. 2, l. 75. When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent onbecoming king, see id. l. 74, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part ofhis plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding “[a]way withhim,” referring to an educated clerk, who “can make obligations and write court hand,” id. l. 90,106. Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to thepath to more power. See Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 371 n.24(1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (explaining the import of the same Shakespearean statement to be“that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government”).
The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fairand impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era.In 1770, John Adams made the singularly unpopular decision to represent eight British soldierscharged with murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre and “claimed later to have suffered the 2loss of more than half his practice.” DAVID M C C ULLOUGH , J OHN ADAMS 68 (2001). “I had nohesitation,” he explained, since “Council ought to be the very last thing that an accused Personshould want in a free Country,” and “the Bar ought . . . to be independent and impartial at all TimesAnd in every Circumstance.” 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF J OHN ADAMS 293 (L.H.Butterfield et al. eds., 1961). When the Bill of Rights was ratified, these principles were codifiedinto the Constitution: The Sixth Amendment secured the right, in “all criminal prosecutions,” to“have the Assistance of Counsel for . . . defence,” U.S. C ONST. amend. VI, and the FifthAmendment protected “the right to the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the partyasserting the right,” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932).1 This value placed on the role oflawyers caught the attention of Alexis de Tocqueville, who in reflecting on his travels throughoutthe early United States in 1831 and 1832, insightfully remarked that “the authority . . . intrusted tomembers of the legal profession . . . is the most powerful existing security against the excesses ofdemocracy.” A LEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, D EMOCRACY IN AMERICA 301 (Henry Reeve trans., 2002)(1835).
The Supreme Court, too, has recognized the importance of lawyers to the functioning ofthe American judicial system, since “[a]n informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed,independent bar.” Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 545 (2001). This is so becauseCongress may legislate, the President may implement, and courts may adjudicate, “but only thelawyers can prepare and submit the great issues of human justice under law in such manner and form that courts, in the ultimate, may be effective.” Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698, 706 (5th Cir.1965). Absent their crucial independence, lawyers would “become nothing more than parrots ofthe views of whatever group wields governmental power at the moment.” Cohen v. Hurley, 366U.S. 117, 138 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting).
The instant case presents an unprecedented attack on these foundational principles. OnMarch 6, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14230 (“EO 14230”), 90 Fed. Reg. 11781(Mar. 11, 2025), entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.”2 By its terms, this Orderstigmatizes and penalizes a particular law firm and its employees—from its partners to its associateattorneys, secretaries, and mailroom attendants—due to the Firm’s representation, both in the pastand currently, of clients pursuing claims and taking positions with which the current Presidentdisagrees, as well as the Firm’s own speech. 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
Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation ofclients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punishcertain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the governmentrespond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with “tolerance, not coercion.” 303 CreativeLLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 603 (2023). 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.” W.Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Simply put, government officials“cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” NRA v. Vullo,602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024).That, however, is exactly what is happening here. For this reason, and those explainedmore fully below, Executive Order 14230 is unconstitutional, and the findings and instructions toExecutive Branch agencies issued in its Sections 1 through 5 cannot be allowed to stand
