by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)
The
American
Bar
Association
appears
to
have
found
the
backbone
that
the
Surrender
Firms
couldn’t
locate.
Today,
the
national
professional
guild
filed
suit
against
Trump
—
and
eight
more
pages
of
caption
—
over
the
administration’s
threats
against
law
firms
to
agree
to
give
him
diversity
concessions
and
dedicated
pro
bono
work
for
causes
he
believes
in
—
or
that
he
dictates,
depending
on
who
you
ask.
Some
law
firms
already
sued
the
administration
over
these
threats
and
won
easily.
The
others
just
sat
back
and
watched
partners
and
business
walk
out
the
door
while
giving
the
media
their
best
impression
of
the
this
is
fine
dog.
Susman
Godfrey,
who
you
might
remember
as
one
of
the
law
firms
Trump
tried
to
mess
with
but
they
decided
to
mercilessly
kick
his
ass
in
court
instead,
represents
the
ABA.
The
ABA
had
already
sued
the
administration
over
cuts
to
numerous
programs
that
would
be
arbitrary
and
capricious
were
they
not
so
retaliatory.
Now
it’s
taking
action
on
behalf
of
lawyers
who
haven’t
been
able
to
stand
up
for
themselves.
Citing
ABA
members
whose
firms
fit
the
standard
that
Trump
has
set
for
punitive
executive
orders
who
reasonable
expect
retaliation
from
the
White
House,
as
well
as
harm
to
the
ABA
itself
as
an
entity
that
relies
on
pro
bono
representation.
The
ABA
alleges
that
these
efforts
have
already
resulted
in
a
firm
saying
they
would
no
longer
represent
the
organization
in
light
of
Trump’s
orders.
Because
everyone
in
the
legal
industry
is
concerned
that
they’re
going
to
be
the
next
one
that
has
to
drag
Trump
into
court
as
while
he’s
wildly
throwing
around
his
executive
authority
like
a
Dumb
John
Wick
if
“killing
his
dog”
was
“hiring
lawyers
who
prosecuted
guys
for
rubbing
feces
outside
Nancy
Pelosi’s
office.”
The
complaint
alleges
multiple
theories
of
First
Amendment
violation
based
on
the
idea
that
governments
punishing
lawyers
for
representing
clients
is…
we
don’t
need
to
elaborate,
right?
I
mean,
we
all
get
how
governments
can’t
punish
people
for
opinions.
It
also
asserts
a
separation
of
powers
claim,
the
sort
of
issue
the
Supreme
Court
is
designed
to
adjudicate
but
won’t
because
that
would
require
a
much
different
Court
than
the
one
we’re
working
with.
Separation
of
powers
is
a
subject
this
Court
will
rail
about
at
length
when
it
bears
little
connection
to
the
case,
but
will
run
away
like
they’re
Paul
Weiss
faced
with
minor
temporary
adversity
if
actually
asked
to
make
a
ruling
on
it.
For
that
matter,
this
is
exactly
the
Supreme
Court
that’s
going
to
use
this
as
a
springboard
to
strike
down
associational
standing
except
for
astroturfed
religious
organizations
trying
to
declare
gay
people
illegal
in
Amarillo.
But,
hey,
it’s
the
thought
and
basic
commitment
to
rule
of
law
that
counts,
ABA!
(Complaint
on
the
next
page…)
Trump
Sued
Over
‘Intimidation’
Campaign
Against
Law
Firms
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.