DOJ seeks pause in law firm executive order cases, pending decision in Mark Zaid appeal
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and four major law firms clashed this week over how federal courts should handle a series of high-profile challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting firms tied to past investigations and litigation against him.
The Trump administration asked judges to pause the law firm cases until the court resolves a related appeal involving attorney Mark Zaid, a longtime Washington lawyer whose security clearance was stripped by Trump, according to a filing Monday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli, arguing for the DOJ, argued that the Zaid case raises overlapping legal issues that could help clarify how the appeals court should approach the broader dispute over Trump’s authority to suspend security clearances and restrict access to federal buildings for lawyers at Big Law firms.
Short of a pause, the DOJ urged the court to consolidate the cases. Kambli pointed out that the court had scheduled briefings through April 10 for the Zaid case, suggesting that the litigation involving the law firms could resume after Zaid’s trial concludes.
The four firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — strongly opposed any delay, accusing the administration of trying to slow-walk litigation over executive orders they say were designed to punish political opponents.
“These cases should move forward,” attorneys for the firms wrote in an eight-page filing, calling the Zaid appeal “almost entirely unrelated” and arguing that further delay would unfairly prolong uncertainty over the legality of the orders.
A broader fight over Trump’s executive power
The dispute is the latest development in Trump’s sweeping effort to rein in elite law firms, which he argues played key roles in politicized investigations targeting him and his allies.
Trump’s executive orders barred lawyers at the targeted firms from holding security clearances or entering certain federal buildings and threatened to terminate government contracts involving the firms or their clients. The president has framed the moves as part of his campaign to end what he calls the “weaponization” of federal power against political adversaries.
Each of the four firms has ties to investigations or litigation that targeted Trump or his allies. Perkins Coie was instrumental in conducting research for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign that fueled the …
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and four major law firms clashed this week over how federal courts should handle a series of high-profile challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting firms tied to past investigations and litigation against him.
The Trump administration asked judges to pause the law firm cases until the court resolves a related appeal involving attorney Mark Zaid, a longtime Washington lawyer whose security clearance was stripped by Trump, according to a filing Monday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli, arguing for the DOJ, argued that the Zaid case raises overlapping legal issues that could help clarify how the appeals court should approach the broader dispute over Trump’s authority to suspend security clearances and restrict access to federal buildings for lawyers at Big Law firms.
Short of a pause, the DOJ urged the court to consolidate the cases. Kambli pointed out that the court had scheduled briefings through April 10 for the Zaid case, suggesting that the litigation involving the law firms could resume after Zaid’s trial concludes.
The four firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — strongly opposed any delay, accusing the administration of trying to slow-walk litigation over executive orders they say were designed to punish political opponents.
“These cases should move forward,” attorneys for the firms wrote in an eight-page filing, calling the Zaid appeal “almost entirely unrelated” and arguing that further delay would unfairly prolong uncertainty over the legality of the orders.
A broader fight over Trump’s executive power
The dispute is the latest development in Trump’s sweeping effort to rein in elite law firms, which he argues played key roles in politicized investigations targeting him and his allies.
Trump’s executive orders barred lawyers at the targeted firms from holding security clearances or entering certain federal buildings and threatened to terminate government contracts involving the firms or their clients. The president has framed the moves as part of his campaign to end what he calls the “weaponization” of federal power against political adversaries.
Each of the four firms has ties to investigations or litigation that targeted Trump or his allies. Perkins Coie was instrumental in conducting research for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign that fueled the …
DOJ seeks pause in law firm executive order cases, pending decision in Mark Zaid appeal
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and four major law firms clashed this week over how federal courts should handle a series of high-profile challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting firms tied to past investigations and litigation against him.
The Trump administration asked judges to pause the law firm cases until the court resolves a related appeal involving attorney Mark Zaid, a longtime Washington lawyer whose security clearance was stripped by Trump, according to a filing Monday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli, arguing for the DOJ, argued that the Zaid case raises overlapping legal issues that could help clarify how the appeals court should approach the broader dispute over Trump’s authority to suspend security clearances and restrict access to federal buildings for lawyers at Big Law firms.
Short of a pause, the DOJ urged the court to consolidate the cases. Kambli pointed out that the court had scheduled briefings through April 10 for the Zaid case, suggesting that the litigation involving the law firms could resume after Zaid’s trial concludes.
The four firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — strongly opposed any delay, accusing the administration of trying to slow-walk litigation over executive orders they say were designed to punish political opponents.
“These cases should move forward,” attorneys for the firms wrote in an eight-page filing, calling the Zaid appeal “almost entirely unrelated” and arguing that further delay would unfairly prolong uncertainty over the legality of the orders.
A broader fight over Trump’s executive power
The dispute is the latest development in Trump’s sweeping effort to rein in elite law firms, which he argues played key roles in politicized investigations targeting him and his allies.
Trump’s executive orders barred lawyers at the targeted firms from holding security clearances or entering certain federal buildings and threatened to terminate government contracts involving the firms or their clients. The president has framed the moves as part of his campaign to end what he calls the “weaponization” of federal power against political adversaries.
Each of the four firms has ties to investigations or litigation that targeted Trump or his allies. Perkins Coie was instrumental in conducting research for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign that fueled the …
0 Comments
0 Shares
35 Views
0 Reviews
