On Friday night, Donald Trump escalated his campaign of retribution against law firms, instructing his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to refer what she classified as partisan lawsuits to the White House and suggest punitive measures that could severely impact the involved firms.
This directive was conveyed in a comprehensive memo where Trump claimed that an excessive number of law firms were submitting frivolous lawsuits intended to create delays. This came in the wake of a week filled with challenges, where numerous judges issued temporary injunctions preventing the implementation of Trump’s policies.
In his memo, Trump ordered Bondi to pursue sanctions against the firms or seek disciplinary actions against their lawyers. However, the authority to impose sanctions rests with federal judges, and perhaps acknowledging the uncertain outcome of such actions, Trump also commanded referrals to the White House.
“Whenever the attorney general concludes that an attorney or law firm’s actions in litigation against the federal government justify seeking sanctions or additional disciplinary measures, the attorney general shall … recommend to the president … further actions that might be taken,” the memo stated.
Consequently, this memo established an official pathway for Trump to independently determine the imposition of politically motivated sanctions via executive orders, potentially stripping lawyers of necessary security clearances for their roles or barring them from federal contracts.
Legal experts noted that the memo could empower Bondi to classify a specific lawsuit causing a temporary injunction as an undue delay, thereby referring the filing firm to experience the detrimental effects of a punitive executive order.
Such actions could breed a chilling atmosphere, leading to a decline in litigation against the Trump administration. Experts expressed concern that despite the legitimacy of lawsuits, legal representation might place lawyers in Trump’s line of fire, jeopardizing their practices.
Additionally, Trump instructed Bondi to investigate the “conduct” of attorneys and their respective law firms in lawsuits against the federal government dating back to the beginning of his first term in 2017, to assess whether this warranted further punitive measures.
This memo emerges as Trump has effectively leveraged executive orders aimed at law firms in recent weeks.
Most recently, Trump revoked the security clearances of lawyers at the Paul Weiss firm and prohibited its staff from entering federal buildings due to longstanding grievances about former partner Mark Pomerantz, who sought to build a criminal case against him in New York.
The executive order against Paul Weiss closely mirrored an order that penalized the Perkins Coie firm over connections to a lawyer associated with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, as well as another directed at Covington and Burling, which represented former special counsel Jack Smith.
Paul Weiss had its order lifted on Thursday after its chair, Brad Karp, made various concessions, including offering critiques of Pomerantz, seemingly to placate Trump. Karp also committed to providing $40 million worth of legal services to causes favored by Trump.
However, Trump has been frustrated for several days, according to sources, over a series of temporary restraining orders that have hindered his political agenda and, in one case, labeled Elon Musk’s cost-cutting initiatives as potentially unconstitutional.
after newsletter promotion
The lawsuit that has frustrated Trump the most involves a challenge in a federal district court in Washington regarding his enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of suspected Venezuelan gang members without due process as he seeks to increase deportations.
In this case, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the administration to suspend any deportation flights currently in the air and temporarily blocked any future deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
This matter has turned into a significant issue for the administration, especially after it failed to recall two flights on the grounds that the judge did not formalize his verbal instructions in a written order, leading the judge to effectively investigate whether the White House disregarded a court order.
“You felt that you could disregard it because it wasn’t in the written order. That’s your first argument? The idea that because my written order was pithier, it could be ignored — that’s quite a stretch,” Boasberg remarked during a recent hearing.
The administration has maintained that it did not violate the order, but the core of the dispute centers on the administration’s belief that the judge lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, disregarding the reality that federal courts possess the authority to determine whether statutes are invoked correctly.
Against this backdrop, as Trump continues to criticize the injunction itself, the administration has adopted a more confrontational approach towards Boasberg and is considering whether to invoke the rarely used state secrets privilege to obstruct the judge’s inquiry.
