American Bar Association Sues Trump
Over Executive Orders Against Law Firms
The American Bar Association is suing the Trump administration over the president's recent executive orders retaliating against law firms that opposed his policies.
The lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., says Trump's orders that have the effect of curtailing the law firms' government contracts or ban their attorneys from federal buildings interfere with constitutional rights of the law firms and their clients.
The law firms – all of which have Washington offices – targeted for reprisal sometimes represented clients who were suing the federal government or were political adversaries of Trump. They include nine of the nation’s largest, such as Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, Jenner & Block and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
A Paul Weiss attorney helped the Manhattan District Attorney prosecute Trump and his business empire for fraud in a civil trial that led to a $464 million judgment against the president last year. Trump is appealing.
The only way the law firms could get the sanctions against them lifted was by agreeing to do pro bono work for causes favored by Trump and Republicans.
Trump's threats and punishments have compelled law firms to "abandon clients, causes and policy decisions the president does not like," says the lawsuit. The result has been a "blizzard-like chill" across the legal profession on which clients the law firms will represent, the lawsuit says.
The president coerced some of the firms into agreements to perform nearly $1 billion in free legal work for conservative causes.
Some of the concessions the law firms have made included eliminating their in-house diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Other firms, such as Perkins Coie, refused to make concessions. Instead, they sued to block the executive orders.
Two federal judges issued injunctions in May against the orders imposed on Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. One of the court rulings described Trump’s orders as unconstitutional and “motivated by retaliation.”
Perkins Coie performed legal work for the campaign of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.
“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 publish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion,’” said the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell.
Many of the arguments made by Perkins Coie were reflected in the American Bar Association’s lawsuit.
It argues that Trump’s executive orders violate First Amendment free speech rights because the law firms were threatened for “engaging in speech the government disfavors.”
The ABA also says the president violates the separation of powers required by the Constitution to balance the authorities of government. In this case, it would be the judicial branch of government as opposed to the executive branch.
“Without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases—and to do so by advancing the interests of their clients without fear of reprisal from the government—the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on executive overreach,” the ABA lawsuit says.
A White House press statement responded to the ABA lawsuit by calling it “clearly frivolous.”
“The President has always had discretion over which contracts the government enters into and who receives security clearances,” the statement. “His exercise of these core executive functions cannot be dictated by the ABA, a private organization, or the courts.”
The lawsuit is only the next stage in a simmering dispute between Trump and the ABA.
Until last month, any of the president’s judicial nominees were vetted by the ABA and given a rating that played a key role in whether they won appointment to federal judgeships.
Attorney General Pam Bondi informed the ABA last month that the Trump administration would no longer give the ABA access to judicial nominees for vetting or take their ratings into consideration. She said the ABA demonstrated “bias” in favor of Democrats that disfavored Trump’s nominees.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Allegations of Self-Interest Linger
Over Trump’s Military Parade
The estimated $40 million military parade that President Donald Trump wanted in downtown Washington, D.C., this month is over but not the controversy over what his critics say are conflicts of interest.
Even some of his fellow Republicans are questioning whether the president was promoting the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army or himself. The parade coincided with Trump’s 79th birthday.
Seated near the president behind the White House were some of the corporate executives who have done business with him or contributed to his campaign.
One of the event’s sponsors was Coinbase, a cryptocurrency firm that donated to Trump’s inauguration.
A day before the parade, Trump disclosed $57.7 million in income from cryptocurrency token sales from a firm he and his sons co-founded, according to an Office of Government Ethics filing.
An announcer interrupted the scripted narration during the parade to thank corporate sponsors. In addition to Coinbase, he mentioned database company Oracle and mixed martial arts promotion company Ultimate Fighting Championship. About the same time, the names of the companies flashed in big letters on screens alongside the reviewing stand.
On Newsmax, a parachutist display was shown next to an ad for Trump watches.
Corporate backing for the parade made some government watchdogs raise questions about a conflict with federal law 2635.702, which is titled “Use of public office for private gain.”
The law says that government employees “may not use their public office for their own private gain; for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise … or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including … persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations.”
Delaney Marsco, ethics director for the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog advocacy group Campaign Legal Center, said the president did not break any laws but he appears to have created an image of impropriety.
“There’s definitely a problem with using a military parade to line your own pockets but it’s not necessarily legally problematic,” Marsco said.
She added, “Past presidents wouldn’t really think about doing something like this.”
The same kinds of concerns were raised during “No Kings” protests nationwide. Most of them consisted of peaceful marches in major cities.
Only sporadic protests were reported in Washington, D.C. None of the protesters were able to get close to Trump’s reviewing stand because of 18 miles of temporary fencing installed around the site of the military parade.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Purdue Pharma to Pay $7.4 Billion
Over its Sales of Painkiller OxyContin
Attorneys general nationwide announced their approval last week of a $7.4 billion settlement with pharmaceutical manufacturer Purdue Pharma over what they say was the company's inappropriate marketing of opioids.
The powerful painkillers have been blamed for thousands of deaths each year and many thousands more drug addictions.
The attorneys general in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia say they plan to use their portion of the settlement for drug addiction treatment programs.
The District of Columbia will get $21 million. Maryland is expected to receive around $90 million. Virginia would get about $104 million.
"The money from this settlement could be a lifeline for those struggling with addiction and could provide Maryland communities with millions to help Marylanders recover from this deadly disease," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said.
The settlement is awaiting final approval of a New York bankruptcy court, which is expected soon.
Purdue Pharma makes the opioid OxyContin. The company originally developed it for people who are immobilized by either acute or chronic pain, such as from injuries, arthritis or cancer. The feeling of euphoria it created proved to be addictive and even deadly.
Purdue Pharma is owned by the Sackler family, which claimed they followed all laws and did nothing wrong.
The attorneys general argued that an aggressive marketing campaign by Purdue Pharma contributed to the deaths and addictions. It included free samples for patients, profiling doctors most likely to prescribe opioids and generous bonuses for OxyContin salespersons.
The $7.4 billion payout is planned to be spread out over the next 15 years. It will be apportioned to each state, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories based on their populations that received prescriptions for OxyContin.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who helped lead the multistate lawsuit, praised the settlement as a “plan to hold the Sackler family accountable."
"For decades, the Sacklers put profits over people, and played a leading role in fueling the epidemic of opioid addictions and overdoses," James said in a statement.
The Sacklers agreed to pay $6.5 billion of the settlement total. The rest would come from Purdue Pharma.
In addition, individual plaintiffs who are not covered by the settlement still would have a right to sue.
Purdue Pharma filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is titled In re: Purdue Pharma LP.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
D.C.’s Congressional Delegate Seeks Law
To Prevent Gay Discrimination in Jury Selection
Washington, D.C.’s congressional delegate last week reintroduced a bill that would prohibit excluding gay persons from serving as jurors in Superior Court based on their sexual orientation.
“Specifically, this bill would clarify that the term ‘sex,’ which is a protected class under the nondiscrimination law that applies to jurors in the D.C. Superior Court includes sexual orientation and gender identity,” Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said in a statement.
She cited the 1991 Supreme Court ruling in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, which said that “discrimination within the courtroom raises serious questions as to the fairness of the proceedings conducted there…. [B]ias mars the integrity of the judicial system and prevents the idea of democratic government from becoming a reality.”
Norton’s bill contains some provisions from the Equality Act pending in Congress.
The Equality Act was introduced the first time in 2019 and won House approval. It stalled in the Senate. It was reintroduced in April of this year.
It would ban discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in a variety of areas that include public accommodations and facilities, education, federally funded programs, employment, housing, credit and jury service.
Norton repeated part of the motivation behind the Equality Act when she said, “Nobody, including D.C. jurors, should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, and D.C. juries should not be deprived of the service of LGBTQ residents.”
Norton’s bill faces an additional obstacle because of congressional authority to veto legislation that applies only to the District of Columbia.
She acknowledged the uphill struggle her bill faces when she said that unless the D.C. Home Rule Act is amended to remove congressional oversight, “an act of Congress is required to clarify that LGBTQ+ jurors in the D.C. Superior Court are protected from discrimination.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Jay Jones Wins Democratic Primary
To Run for Virginia Attorney General
Former Virginia House Delegate Jay Jones won the Democratic primary for the state’s attorney general last week.
He will run against Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares in the November general election.
Like other Democratic candidates for attorney general, Jones directed much of his campaign at trying to demonstrate resistance toward President Donald Trump.
“I will never bend to the presidency,” Jones said in reference to Trump.
He also said that he would use court action to oppose the president on important issues.
“I am ready for this fight and to win this November,” Jones said in a victory statement.
Jones is a former assistant attorney general in Washington, D.C., who represented Norfolk in Virginia. Some of his enforcement efforts in Washington were directed at fraudulent businesses that used robocalls to scam consumers.
Virginia is one of two states that holds primary elections the year after a presidential election. The other is New Jersey.
The elections in both states are closely watched by political party leaders as early indicators of potentially shifting preferences among voters.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.