Author: Ron Davis

Posted on

Of Habeas Corpus, Venezuelan Deportees, Class Action Procedures, Appellate Jurisdiction, Cutesy-Poo Bad Faith Maneuvers by the Justice Department, and Hound Dogs That Are Not Barking in the Night

Yesterday, May 16, the Supreme Court issued another ruling in the case of the Venezuelan people than Trump wants to deport to a gulag in El Salvador; read the opinion here. I posted about this case on April 19,April 20, and April 22.

The May 16 decision consists of (1) an eight-page unsigned (“per curiam”) opinion on behalf of the Chief Justice, the three Trump-appointed justices, and the three liberal justices, (2) a two-page concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, and (3) a 14-page dissenting opinion by Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas. 

Although the majority, per curiam opinion did not use words such as “bad faith,” “fibbing,” or “too cute for words” in describing the Justice Department’s position, it clearly implied that the government attorneys were prevaricating with the Supreme Court about the government’s plans to whisk the plaintiffs away—and then claim the Court had no jurisdiction as to individuals located in a foreign country. 

The Court ordered, once again, that the Venezuelans should stay in this country pending further legal proceedings, and it remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration of how due process should work under the Alien Enemies Act, along with a variety of other considerations.

Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the majority’s analysis but would have kept the case in the Supreme Court and have the Court eschew further shilly-shallying, and just decide the damn case. 

In his dissent, Justice Alito enlarged ad nauseam on the multiple ways in which the majority’s truncated, expedited procedure is in tension with the way things are normally done. As indeed they are. No shit, Sherlock. The government was lying to the courts, frog-marching the poor Venezuelans out of the country, and employing every bad faith trick in the books to use the normal, deliberative rules of the law of civil procedure in order to forestall real due process for immigrants.

Let’s look at the situation from 30,000 feet. What do we see?

First, Team Trump’s legal strategy—along will all the legal tactics that flow from that strategy—is to replace rule of law with a Ptemkin village that looks, from the outside, something like rule of law, but is not in fact rule of law. 

Second, that legal strategy is doomed to failure unless a critical mass of the judiciary—and particularly a critical mass of the justices of the Supreme Court—are prepared to go along with it. (Sure, Trump could just order the police to arrest or kill all the members of the Supreme Court, and if the police obey the order, then Trump would win. But in that situation, the outcome would not be a legal Potemkin village, but rather a legal wasteland.)

Third, Team Trump seems to have thought that Justices Alito and Thomas, plus the three Trump-appointed justices would embrace the Potemkin village approach. Well, if that’s what Team Trump thought, then it appears they were right about Alito and Thomas but wrong about Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett. 

The real news here—the Man Bites Dog element—is that the three Trump-appointed justices did not bark in the night at Trump’s command.

Logical conclusion: the days are hastening on to the place where Team Trump is either going to have to back down on multiple legal fronts or it is going to have to declare, in words that are clear to the least intelligent folks among us, that the rule of law is over. 

If it choose the latter option, it will be subject to vehement objections by all the Trump justices appointed in the first term–as well as a great many of the Trump Judes appointed to the courts of appeal and to the district court.

The unvarnished assault on the rule of law will come at a time when Walmart is running out of cheap goods, then Americans are being injured in multiple ways by cuts in government services, when small businesses are going out of business, and when Walmart is running out of cheap imported goods.

Posted on

Trump and Big Law: The Current State of Play

The immediately preceding post gave links to sources that summarize how major law firms have reacted to Trump’s nonsense. Here, using FAQs, I give an account of the current state of play.

Among the law firms that have been targeted by Trumps, how many have sued, and how are the lawsuits going to date?

On March 6, Trump issued an executive order against Perkins Coie—“Where Innovation Meets Infrastructure”—because he was butt hurt that the firm had previously represented Hillary Clinton. Five days later, on March 11, the law firm sued. On May 2, less than two months later, the district judge issued a 100+ page order permanently enjoining Trump from carrying out his threats. 

Presumably, Team Trump will appeal the decision, but that has not happened as of this writing.

Why did the district judge in the Perkins Coie case reach a final decision in record time?

Because Team Trump had no cognizable defense. 

Or, as we used to say back in New York, their only argument is the so-you-caught-me defense.

What about the other law firm lawsuits?

WilmerHale filed its case on March 28, and procured a preliminary injunction—not a permanent injunction—on April 24. Team Trump can still appeal the PI ruling, if it so chooses, or it may decide to wait until the decision on a permanent injunction. 

Jenner & Block also filed on March 28. Judge Howell, the judge in the Perkins Coie case, rejected Jenner’s attempt to get the case assigned to her as a “related case.” The lawsuit was then bounced to Judge Bates, who granted a temporary restraining order the same day.

Fast footwork, that. 

There was a hearing on April 28 on Jenner’s request for a final ruling it its favor, but the judge has not yet issued his decision. Presumably, he is writing his opinion—with due attention to the 100+ page ruling in the Perkins Coie litigation. 

Meanwhile, a temporary restraining order against Trump remains in effect. 

Susman Godfrey was the last of the four, filing its complaint on April 11. A temporary restraining order was entered and remains in effect. On May 8, Judge AliKhan held a hearing on the question whether Team Trump should be enjoined permanently, but no decision has been released as of this writing. However, back on April 15 when he issued the TRO, the judge described Trump’s action against the Susman firm as a misuse of presidential authority and a “shocking abuse of power.”

This would be a clue about how the good judge is likely to rule.

Apart from the four law firms that have sued Team Trump, which other firms have been targeted by punitive executive orders?

In alphabetical order they are:

  • Covington & Burling
  • Elias Law Group
  • Milbank
  • Paul, Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
  • Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Have all of these firms reached “deals” with Trump?

No. Covington and Elias have not. Milbank, Paul, Weiss, Skadden, and Willkie all have capitulated.

Have other big law firms bowed down under the mere threat of a punitive executive order?

Yes, indeed. In alphabetical order they are:

  • Allan Overy Shearman Sterling
  • Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
  • Kirkland & Ellis
  • Latham & Watkins
  • Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

So, all together, nine big law firms have signed “deals” with Trump?

Correct.

And why are you putting quotation marks around “deals”?

Because the so-called “agreements” are not legally enforceable and do not even purport to be legally enforceable. See, for example, Just Security, No, the President Cannot Enforce the Law-Firm Deals and Yahoo News, Trump’s Law Firm Deals Are Already Falling Apart.

Are any new “deals” in the works?

I believe not.

What’s the story with Covington & Burling and the Elias Group, both of which were targeted by executive orders and neither of which has a “deal” with Team Trump?

Covington is a major law firm headquartered in Washington, D.C., has a significant lobbying operation, and recruits politically prominent individuals from both parties. Its best known current partner is Eric Holder, the former Attorney General. 

As far as is publicly known—and that’s an important qualification,

  • Team Trump has not taken any serious enforcement action against Covington, which continues to go about its ordinary business, 
  • Covington has not lost clients or lawyers,
  • Covington has neither sued Team Trump nor issued any fire-breathing declarations against Trump, and
  • There are no ongoing negotiations.

And why is nothing happening (as far as is publicly known)? Maybe (1) Covington, being the well-connected firm that it is, has some threat to hold over Trump’s head. Or maybe (2) Covington has done something valuable for Trump, but not told anyone about it. Or, perhaps most likely (3) with both sides knowing that Covington could walk down to the courthouse any day of the week and get an injunction, both sides decided to see how the four pending cases play out, once they reach the Supreme Court, and will then reconsider their position.

The Elias Law Group, a small, progressive firm focusing on voting rights and other public interest issues, has just told Team Trump to go to hell.

In view of all the foregoing, what are we to make of the claim by the head of Paul, Weiss that he had to capitulate because his firm faced an “existential threat”?

It’s reasonable to conclude that the head of Paul, Weiss showed poor situational awareness, exercised bad judgment, and demonstrated an attitude at odds with his duty as a legal professional.

The nine capitulating law firms have, in the aggregate, “agreed” to provide over $900 million (in value) in pro bono legal services to causes mutually agreed with Team Trump. How does that stand?

Each of the nine firms has “agreed” to provide pro bono services in identified general areas, like “promoting justice” or “opposing antisemitism.” And Trump has made some public noises about the kinds of legal services he has in mind. But, as far as is publicly known,

  • None of the nine firms is currently providing pro bono services to anyone, pursuant to their Trump “deals,” and, indeed,
  • There are no reports that Team Trump has asked a specific firm to take on a specific pro bono client.

Have the nine capitulating law firms suffered negative effects such as client departures, attorney resignations, and reduced recruitment of the ablest law school graduates?

In a previous post, I reported on Microsoft’s replacement of a capitulating law firm with a fighting law firm, in major ongoing litigation. More recently, the Wall Street Journal has written about how capitulating firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft is in deep doo-doo. See Venerable New York Firm That Struck a Deal with Trump Is Losing Lawyers: Cadwalader avoided a punitive executive order, but the accord has left the firm in turmoil.

There have been reports of some resignations by attorneys at other capitulating firms, but, thus far, as far as is publicly known, concrete harms have been limited.

But push will shortly come to shove. To take one example: Kirkland & Ellis expects to welcome more than 500 “summer associates” (rising third-year law students) next month, at its various offices, and probably an equal number of law graduates this fall (after they have taken their bar exams).

Of those anticipated hires, how many will actually show up? 

Maybe all of them, or maybe not. I don’t know. But I do know that, for those young men who descend on the K&E home office in Chicago, when the visit the men’s room they will find two kinds of hair spray and two brands of mouthwash. Their breath will smell of roses, but, otherwise, the stink will be pungent and lasting.

Finally, is the real effect of the nine capitulations something that isn’t written down on paper, namely, the cowardly law firms’ decision to stay away from clients and causes that Trump doesn’t like, both paid and pro bono?

Yes. That is a correct assessment.

Posted on

Big Law Spinelessness: Scorecards That Separate the Sheep from the Goats

I have been asked for a summary of how law firms responded to Trump’s threats.

There appear to be two indices. 

One tracks the “AmLaw 200”—the top 200 firms, as determined by the American Lawyer. It’s found here. The 200 law firms are listed in order of their gross worldwide revenues. But, to give additional context, the rightmost column gives information on each firm’s average profit per equity partner. For example, a firm with a very large number of lawyers may rank high in gross income but lower in profit per average partner. 

This first index is called the “Biglaw Spine Index,” a demonstrates the correlation between high revenue and profits and willingness to capitulate. 

Another comprehensive index, prepared by Georgetown Law students, will be found here.

Meanwhile, over 800 law firms are said to have signed on to amicus briefs like this one in the lawsuit brought by WilmerHale.

Posted on

It Begins: Xi Forces Trump to Negotiate Against Himself

Washington Post, Trump suggests lowering tariffs on China ahead of talks

The Post writes, 

President Donald Trump said Friday that the United States could lower tariffs on China to 80 percent [instead of 145 percent] ahead of a meeting this weekend between his top aides and their counterparts from Beijing. …

The president’s apparent eagerness to get a deal reflects the mounting economic damage from the tariffs he has imposed thus far. China said its exports to the United States dropped 21 percent in April from a year before, and economists have forecast an increased likelihood of a U.S. recession. White House officials have grown alarmed by Chinese curbs on exports of rare earth minerals, used to make military drones, consumer electronics, electric cars and other important products.

Posted on

Try to Remember

The Constitution has this to say about the presidential oath of office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution has this to say about the role of the courts:

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior … The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution [or] the Laws of the United States …

Posted on

Much Legal News, All Good, Mostly Dog Bites Man

I’ll let you know when we get to the Man Bites Dog part.

This morning, the Washington Post gives a comprehensive account of all the federal judges who are comprehensively pissed off by the incompetence and contumacious behavior of attorneys working for the US Justice Department. 

Meanwhile, the New York Times explains in some detail how “a deep bench of conservative lawyers” are working for Harvard. I touched on this topic in an earlier post, but the Times has more resources to fill out the story in detail, as compared with one old guy like me sitting in his man cave with a computer and an internet connection. 

For what it’s worth, I disagree with the last paragraph of the Times article, wherein someone is quoted as saying that judges might feel “manipulated” if someone hires lawyers with whom they agree ideologically and who are their friends. Well, I suppose that could happens. And I suppose there could come a time when God stops making little green apples and it stops raining in Indianapolis in the summertime. 

In other news, also good, Abbe Lowell, Esquire, has left Winston & Strawn (a Big Law firm known as a business litigation powerhouse) and formed a new firm to represent people and institutions targeted by Trump. Some of the associates in his new firm, Lowell & Associates, come from big firms that have bowed the knee to Mango Mussolini. 

A big news item on Friday evening was Judge Beryl Howell’s 100+ page opinion granting summary judgment to Perkins Coie in its suit to undo Trump’s executive order against it. Dog Bites Man: no, said the judge, to a Team Trump ignorant of the basic rules of constitutional law, it won’t do to retaliate against a person or an institution for exercising their constitutional rights, said the judge. And, she added, “If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.”

I said I would let you know when we get to the Man Bites Dog news. We’re here. And that news is all good, too. 

On Thursday, Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., a district judge in the Southern District of Texas appointed by Mango Mussolini back in 2018, handed Team Trump a major legal black eye when he blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act on the ground that the 1798 law is inapplicable, inasmuch as there has been no “invasion” or “predatory incursion” into the United States, as those terms were understood back in 1798.

Textualism and originalism, doncha know?

The American Civil Liberties Union represented the people about to be deported. I have not seen their brief, but I strongly suspect they argued their case in terms designed to appeal to the district judge, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to the majority of the Supreme Court. 

Good for the ACLU. They’re arguing to win their case—not to make themselves popular in the faculty lounge at Harvard Law School or at the progressive table here at Happy Acres.

The ACLU is doing great work. Donate here.

Finally, some will say it would have been better if Judge Rodriguez had enjoined Team Trump throughout the nation, not just in the Southern District of Texas. But the judge may have believed those who argue that he lacked jurisdiction to issue a nationwide injunction. Or, he may have just wanted to keep the issue really, really simple, as the case moves forward on appeal. 

In any event, the case is ripe and ready for appeal, as is Judge Howell’s decision in the Perkins Coie litigation.

Supreme Court, here we come. 

Posted on

Simpson Thacher and Jenner & Block—Big Law’s Answer to Goofus and Gallant—Show the Cost of Cowardice and the Economic Value of Courage

One Swallow Does Not a Summer Make—But I Think This is the Start of a Trend

N.Y. Times, Microsoft Drops Law Firm That Made a Deal With Trump From a Case

The Times writes,

When big law firms attacked by President Trump decided to make a deal with him rather than fight, many did so because their leaders feared that clients would abandon a firm caught on the administration’s bad side.

Now that logic may be getting less compelling. A major company, Microsoft, has dropped a law firm that settled with the administration in favor of one that is fighting it. … 

On April 22, several attorneys at the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett informed the Delaware Court of Chancery that they would no longer be representing Microsoft in a case related to the company’s 2023 acquisition of the video game giant Activision Blizzard, according to court filings.

Simpson Thacher reached a deal with the White House last month in which the firm committed to perform $125 million in free legal work for causes acceptable to the Trump administration. In a joint statement with other firms making similar agreements, Simpson Thacher said the pro bono work would be on behalf of “a wide range of underserved populations.”

On the same day that the Simpson Thacher lawyers filed paperwork withdrawing from the Microsoft case, at least three partners at the firm Jenner & Block informed the court that they would be representing Microsoft in the case. Jenner is fighting in court to permanently block a Trump administration executive order targeting its business. …

In some cases, a client may worry that a law firm that has reached a deal with the White House has a conflict of interest that prevents it from aggressively representing the client. For example, the client may be a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the federal government and worry that a settling law firm would be reluctant to stand up to the administration.

Other clients may have broader concerns. A senior partner at another firm that does not have an agreement with the White House said his firm was beginning to attract clients from firms that had settled with the administration. The partner, who was not authorized to discuss client matters publicly, said prospective clients had indicated that they had lost confidence in settling firms for not standing up to an attack on the rule of law.

Some firms challenging the administration have sought to capitalize on this frustration, suggesting that their pushback reflects a commitment to fight on behalf of their clients as well.