​Trump’s Directive Against Law Firms
Creates Concern of War with Lawyers

     A new presidential memorandum is raising questions from members of the legal community about whether Donald Trump is trying to wage war with law firms that challenge his policies.
     The memo tells the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States” or federal agencies.
     Trump issued the memo one day after the major law firm of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison said it was compelled to reach a settlement with the president’s administration or risk being driven out of business.
     The firm was known for its pro bono work on civil rights cases that sometimes included suing the government. In addition, one of its attorneys helped New York’s attorney general investigate Trump’s alleged financial improprieties.
     Ben Wizner, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, said Trump’s directive could "chill and intimidate" attorneys who challenge the president.
     "Courts have been the only institution so far that have stood up to Trump’s onslaught,” Wizner said. “Courts can’t play that role without lawyers bringing cases in front of them."
     Marc Elias, a former Democratic Party election law attorney, said in a statement, “President Trump is attempting to dismantle the Constitution and attack the rule of law in his obsessive pursuit of retribution against his political opponents.”
     He added, “President Trump’s goal is clear. He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his administration in court.”
     More than 100 lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration since January that oppose the president’s actions on mass firings, foreign relations, transgender rights and other issues. The plaintiffs were represented by the kinds of legal advocacy groups and major law firms the president seeks to punish.
     White House press spokesman Taylor Rogers explained the president’s motivations, saying, “President Trump is delivering on his promise to ensure the judicial system is no longer weaponized against the American people."
     Part of the White House effort included a settlement last week with the law firm of Paul Weiss that requires it to cease its diversity, equity and inclusion program.
     The settlement also requires Paul Weiss to adopt a political policy of neutrality and bipartisanship and to take on $40 million in pro bono cases that promote the Trump administration's goals.
     The firm’s chairman said he had no better option. He said Trump’s executive order would have destroyed the law firm.
     The president said Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp "acknowledged the wrongdoing" of his firm's former counsel Mark Pomerantz, who assisted the Manhattan District Attorney's Office in investigating Trump's finances in 2021.
     Some lawyers expressed outrage toward Paul Weiss for caving in to Trump’s pressure. 
     Four other BigLaw firms, as well as individual lawyers, remain banned under Trump’s executive orders against them.
     Karp said in an email to Paul Weiss employees that the firm’s management considered opposing Trump’s executive order but determined that it represented too much of an “existential crisis.”
     As the firm’s attorneys prepared a court filing, “it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration,” Karp wrote.
     He added, “The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm,” Karp wrote. “It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients.”
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Congressional Republicans Seek Legislation
To Limit Judges’ Nationwide Injunctions

     The U.S. House plans to vote soon on a bill that would limit the authority of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions against Trump administration policy actions.
     The bill introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is another sign of the growing conflict between President Donald Trump and federal courts. It was scheduled for a vote this week but delayed by last-minute amendments.
     Federal judges have issued about 40 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration since Jan. 20. They have sought to halt mass firings of federal employees, prevent elimination of environmental regulations and create procedural requirements before deportations.
     The injunctions were responses to President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
     House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., suggested last week that Congress should consider getting rid of some federal courts or at least restricting their ability to rule on issues.
     “We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know,” Johnson said while speaking with the news media. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things.”
     Johnson is one of the lawmakers who has called for impeaching federal judges the Trump administration considers obstructive.
     “But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act,” Johnson said.
     Congress has instituted impeachment proceedings against 15 federal judges in American history but only eight have been removed from office. Removal requires evidence of serious crimes or corruption.
     Impeachment threats against judges prompted a warning from the Supreme Court's chief justice.
     "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement.
     He added that the "normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
     Issa’s bill, titled the No Rogue Rulings Act, seeks to sidestep conflicts over policy issues by restricting federal judges to issuing injunctions only on behalf of persons who file lawsuits. It would not allow them to intervene in any political issues that extend beyond the persons who sue.
     Issa used the word “Rogue” in his bill to refer to some federal judges, most specifically U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who issued an order this month to stop deportations of accused Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador.
     Boasberg’s contention that the deportations before hearings violate constitutional due process rights set off harsh criticisms from Trump and Republicans in Congress.
     One of them was Issa, who said in a statement that Boasberg “severely overstepped his authority and demonstrated the most critical shortfall of judicial temperament.”
     He called Boasberg’s order for an airplane carrying deportees to return to the United States – which Trump ignored – an example of “Trump resistance in robes.”
     A similar bill introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is pending in the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearing on judges’ nationwide injunctions within days.
     Democrats say Republicans are creating a constitutional crisis over the balance of governmental power between the president, Congress and the judiciary.
     Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the House Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, said, "Threatening judges with impeachment or retribution for upholding their oaths of office and doing their jobs under the Constitution is an act of outlaw tyranny, not constitutional government."
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Supreme Court Rejects Children’s Lawsuit
Seeking Injunction Against Climate Change

     The U.S. Supreme Court last week declined to revive a lawsuit on behalf of children who said U.S. energy policies that exacerbate climate change are damaging their futures.
     They said unrestrained climate change jeopardized their life, liberty, personal security and health.
     The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed their lawsuit, saying no federal agency or official could resolve their complaint even if climate policy is flawed. As a result, they lacked standing to sue.
     Four other courts ruled in favor of plaintiffs in similar lawsuits.
     All of them blamed the U.S. government for encouraging fossil fuel extraction and consumption despite knowing the fuels contribute to global warming.
     They cited as examples wildfires, drought and flooding that they say threatens their health and property. They claimed an ill-advised U.S. energy policy violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.
     The lawsuit was filed by Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit law firm, on behalf of 21 children from across the United States. It is titled Juliana v. United States et al in reference to one of the plaintiffs, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana.
     Their lawsuit was seeking “both declaratory and injunctive relief for their claim—specifically, a declaration of the federal government's fiduciary role in preserving the atmosphere and an injunction of its actions which contravene that role.”
     The Supreme Court decided to let the Ninth Circuit’s decision stand in an order without explanation.
     Julia Olson, chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust, said the political movement to protect children from climate change will not end with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
     "Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone," Olson said in a statement. "Juliana ignited a global youth-led climate rights movement that continues to grow stronger. It has inspired young people to stand up and demand their constitutional rights to a safe climate and a livable future."
     The Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said the lawsuit raises political questions that fall outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
     Its ruling said federal courts “could not 'step into [the] shoes' of the political branches to provide the relief the Juliana plaintiffs sought." As a result, their claim was not “justiciable."
     The Juliana plaintiffs argued political policy was not the issue as much as the damages they will suffer.
     They claimed a right to an injunction against the Environmental Protection Agency because of a "concrete and particularized ongoing injury fairly traceable to the [government’s] challenged conduct."
     Our Children’s Trust sought to draw authority for its lawsuit from victories that children plaintiffs won in other courts, such as in Montana and Hawaii.
     In 2023, a Montana judge ruled that children had a fundamental right to a clean environment.
     The plaintiffs’ successful lawsuit challenged whether the state could lawfully bar environmental regulators from considering whether new oil and gas projects might contribute to climate change. State lawmakers had placed restrictions on government agencies’ authority to consider greenhouse gas emissions before issuing oil and gas permits.
     In the Hawaii lawsuit, the state agreed to a settlement last June requiring it to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045.
     The plaintiffs said Hawaii violated their constitutional rights with transportation infrastructure that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
     The Supreme Court case is Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America et al.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

U.S. Attorney’s Plan to Protect Police
Draws Warnings About Rights Violations

     The interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia said last week he no longer plans to turn over potentially discrediting information about police officers to judges or defense attorneys before the officers testify at criminal trials.
     The announcement is raising questions about whether it could violate defendants’ legal rights to a fair trial.
     “It’s going to interfere with the Constitution really,” said a Washington attorney who handles public defender cases. He asked not to be named.
     It also creates possibilities that prosecuting attorneys could be penalized or disbarred by judges or the D.C. Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility for failing to follow proper court procedures.
     “They could,” the attorney said. “I think it’s going to lead to a lot more litigation.”
     The announcement from interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin refers to “Lewis Lists.”
     Lewis Lists are records of troublesome or untruthful behavior by police officers that would tend to undercut their credibility when they testify at trials. It is derived from the 1979 District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruling in Lewis v. United States.
     The court said that the due process clause of the Constitution requires prosecutors to give the defense attorneys and judges any significant evidence they hold that suggests a defendant is not guilty, including information showing misconduct by police.
     Defense attorneys sometimes use Lewis List information to challenge the credibility of officers who accuse defendants of crimes. The information also can interfere with officers’ opportunities for promotions or pay raises.
     The legal term for the information is exculpatory evidence. The Lewis Lists are held by U.S. attorneys’ offices.
     Martin said he would withhold the information as a show of support for police. He made the announcement on the social media site X.
     The U.S. Attorney’s Office “will no longer allow judges or others to gratuitously damage your careers because of the outside impact of inexact characterizations,” he wrote in a memo addressed to “Our Cops and Law Enforcement Officers.”
     “More and more, I hear from Men and Women in Blue that they want to know we have their backs. We do and we will,” Martin wrote.
     He said the policy shift was a way to “stand up to judges” and “anyone who maligns our officers for sport or advantage unfairly.”
     Some attorneys are saying Martin is overstepping his authority.
     Under Rule 3.8e of the District of Columbia Bar’s Rules of Professional Responsibility, a prosecutor is forbidden from intentionally failing “to disclose to the defense … any evidence or information that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know tends to negate the guilt of the accused or to mitigate the offense…”
     Judges or the D.C. Bar can discipline prosecutors who violate the rule by fining them, sentencing them to jail or taking away their licenses to practice law.
     A high-profile example of what happens for violating exculpatory evidence rules followed the criminal conviction of former Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens in 2009. A jury found him guilty of seven corruption charges for financial improprieties.
     A federal judge later threw out the conviction after evidence arose that prosecutors hid evidence of Stevens’ innocence. By then, he had lost his reelection bid for the Senate seat he held for 40 years.
     The prosecutor accused of hiding the evidence was facing criminal charges before he committed suicide.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Senate Told that Near Misses Were Frequent
By Reagan National Airplanes and Helicopters

     A recent Senate hearing is adding to the evidence being used in lawsuits following the Jan. 29 collision over Reagan National Airport between an Army helicopter and a commercial airplane that killed 67 people.
     Federal Aviation Administration officials acknowledged that there had been thousands of near misses between Army helicopters and commercial aircraft at the airport before the collision.
     A Senate subcommittee held the hearing on the heels of a new National Transportation Safety Board report indicating the number of near misses was much higher than previously assumed.
     During the Jan. 29 collision, an American Airlines regional jet slammed into an Army Black Hawk helicopter that was flying higher than its authorized altitude.
     False instrument readings on the helicopter and the inability of equipment on both aircraft to send warnings to each other are suspected of contributing to the mid-air collision. 
     Between October 2021 and December 2024, there were more than 15,000 close proximity events between commercial airplanes and helicopters at Reagan National Airport, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. Close calls mean the lateral separation between the aircraft was less than one nautical mile and vertical separation was less than 400 feet.
     "Alarm bells about potential collisions have been ringing for years," said Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Aviation, Space and Innovation.
     The assessment of an obvious mistake was shared by Acting Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Chirs Rocheleau, who said, “Clearly something was missed.”
     Much of the hearing focused on the Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, or ADS-B, transmission system that aircraft commonly use to broadcast their positions, directions, speed and other flight data.
     Most Army helicopters over Washington, D.C., did not transmit ADS-B data. In fact, Army Aviation policy recommended that its helicopters not transmit the data to avoid security risks that might make them vulnerable.
     Many commercial aircraft can transmit data about their own flights but not receive data from other aircraft.
     FAA officials acknowledged the control tower might have been able to divert the aircraft if it had accurate information about the helicopter’s position in front of the oncoming regional jet. 
     Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, Space, and Innovation, said "[the] 67 lives that were lost on Jan. 29 were taken prematurely in an accident that by all indications should have been avoided."
     Another step in the aftermath of the collision is the lawsuits that are increasing in number along with the evidence of negligence.
     Robert Clifford, a Chicago-based attorney who was the first to file a lawsuit after the collision on behalf of a Connecticut woman whose husband was killed, said in a statement, “Will there be litigation here? Yes. There will be litigation. For a long time, there’s been discussion about the congestion at Reagan National and the commingling of commercial aircraft with operations by military aircraft and helicopters in particular.”
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.​