Trump's revenge on law firms is paused again by the courts

Salon - Mar 29th, 2025

Donald Trump's efforts to penalize law firms involved in investigations related to the 2016 election faced significant setbacks as two federal judges invalidated most of his executive orders on Friday. Trump's orders targeted Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, prohibiting their lawyers from federal buildings and meetings, due to their participation in probes related to Russian interference in the election. The orders were deemed retaliatory and discriminatory by Judges John Bates and Richard Leon, who highlighted constitutional violations, particularly around free speech and legal advocacy. Although parts of the orders were blocked, sections that revoke security clearances for attorneys at these firms remain in place.

Trump's actions against law firms perceived as politically opposed to him have broader implications for legal and constitutional norms. This latest development reflects the ongoing tension between Trump's political maneuvers and the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights. The orders had prompted some firms to negotiate settlements, with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom agreeing to significant pro bono work commitments. This situation underscores the complex interplay between political power and legal advocacy, raising critical questions about the limits of executive authority and the protection of free expression and legal representation in the United States.

Donald Trump Russian Interference Free Speech 2016 Election Executive Orders Constitutional Rights Robert Mueller Jenner & Block Wilmer Hale Legal Advocacy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of Trump's executive orders against law firms and the judicial pushback they have encountered. It effectively highlights the constitutional issues at play and the broader public interest in maintaining the independence of the legal profession. However, the article could benefit from a more balanced presentation by including perspectives from Trump's administration and more detailed source attribution. While the clarity and engagement levels are adequate, the story's impact is somewhat limited by its lack of depth in exploring the legal and political ramifications. Overall, the article serves as a useful entry point into a complex and controversial topic, but it would be strengthened by greater transparency and source diversity.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims, primarily focusing on Trump's executive orders against law firms and the judicial responses to these actions. The story accurately reports that federal judges blocked Trump's orders against Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, citing constitutional concerns. However, the article could benefit from more precision regarding the specific legal grounds for these rulings and the details of the executive orders themselves. Some claims, such as the financial agreements with law firms like Skadden and Paul, Weiss, need further verification as they are significant assertions without direct source attribution within the text.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective that Trump's actions are retaliatory and constitutionally questionable, supported by quotes from judges and some law firms. However, it lacks a balanced viewpoint by not including responses or justifications from Trump or his administration. This omission could lead to perceived bias, as readers are not provided with a comprehensive view of the motivations or rationale behind the executive orders.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it accessible to readers. It logically presents the sequence of events, from Trump's executive orders to the judicial rulings. However, the article could improve clarity by providing more context for the legal and constitutional issues involved, which would help readers understand the implications of the judges' decisions.

Source quality

The article references CNN and The New York Times, credible sources that lend some authority to the reported events. However, it lacks direct quotes or statements from primary sources such as court documents, Trump's administration, or representatives from the mentioned law firms. This reliance on secondary reporting without direct attribution to primary sources limits the article's reliability.

Transparency

The article provides limited transparency regarding its sources and the basis for its claims. While it mentions reputable outlets like CNN and The New York Times, it does not clearly outline the methodology behind the reported facts or disclose potential conflicts of interest. Greater transparency about the origins of the information and any editorial processes would enhance the article's credibility.