by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)
Donald
Trump’s efforts
to
defend
the
executive
orders
targeting
Biglaw
firms
that
have
earned
his
ire are
loser
cases.
Four
different
district
court
judges
from across
the
political
spectrum have
all
ruled
that
EOs
aimed
at Perkins
Coie, Jenner
&
Block, WilmerHale,
and Susman
Godfrey,
respectively,
are
unconstitutional
on
a
variety
of
grounds.
Yet,
the
administration
is appealing
the
Jenner
&
Block
case,
and
the
WilmerHale
case,
and
the
Perkins
Coie
one
too.
So,
not
terribly
surprising
that,
on
Friday,
the
Department
of
Justice
filed
an
appeal
in
the
fourth
Biglaw
EO
case
—
the
one
targeting
Susman
Godfrey.
Susman’s
spokesperson
came
out
swinging
in
response
to
the
appeal,
saying,
“The
courts
have
spoken
clearly
and
decisively:
the
administration’s
executive
orders
targeting
law
firms
violate
the
Constitution
and
undermine
Americans’
right
to
choose
a
lawyer
without
fear.
Susman
Godfrey
challenged
this
order
because
we
believe
in
the
rule
of
law.
That
belief
continues
to
guide
us
as
we
fight
the
administration’s
unwarranted
appeal
and
continue
to
defend
the
rights
of
our
clients
and
our
colleagues.”
But
the
rub
is
that
the
Supreme
Court
is
disturbingly
willing
to
eschew
legal
norms
and
bend
over
backwards
for
Trump,
so
what
should
be
an
easy
call
at
the
High
Court
becomes
an
open
question.
And
Trump
is
hoping
to
capitalize
on
that
and
is
pushing
to
get
in
front
of
his
favorite
justices.
These
EOs
are
pretty
obviously
an
affront
to
legal
institutions
and
the
very
rule
of
law —
let’s
hope
the
majority
of
the
Court
sees
that
too.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].