President Trump’s effort to punish law firms suffered another judicial defeat on 27 June, when US District Judge Lauren Alkhan Enclosed enforcement of his executive Order Targeting Susain Godfrey. But a vaguely obscure vague aspect of the case is more noticeable, as it suggests a broader threat to America’s system of free expression.
The Suzman executive order was strange from the beginning. The orders against Perkins Koi, Paul Weiss, Jenner and Wilmarhail all recited individual groits which Trump had organized against those associated with firms. Each order also had ideological objections, to ensure that, but the order was individual to the President, in a way the Suzman was not a order.
Perhaps for this reason, the complaints pronounced in the Suzman’s order were not specific. The order referred to the election work without quoting anything, but each side concluded that probably keeping in mind the representation of the state officials in the 2020 election challenges in the White House and perhaps at $ 787.5 million defamation disposal Firm won For the dominion voting system in a case against Fox News.
But then the order said: “Suzmann also gives money to groups that are engaged in dangerous efforts to reduce the effectiveness of the United States Army through political and radical ideology injections.”
what was that about? Nobody was finding out.
At temporary preventive order hearing, Donald Verilli Junior, former American Solicitor General who represented Suzman, said the firm “was completely mysterious by it.” Funny, the government was equally surprised: “Sadly, your honor, I have no information beyond what is involved in the order.”
With temporary prevention order issued, Suzmann went to the summary decision, and, in the government File of oppositionThe mystery of the traitor funding allegations was resolved.
In 2017, during the first Trump administration, the President released an executive memorandum banning transgender people from military service. Followed many cases. One, Stockman vs TrumpWas filed by Latham and Watkins. Suzmann did not register a case and never appeared in it.
Finally, the lawyer affiliated to the gay rights group HappyA respected and effective advocacy organization established in 1978 recorded an attendance. But those lawyers did not work for Suzmann.
In protest against Suzman’s summary decision proposal, the government complained to Stockman and “Joy“The publication of a magazine-style discussed the work of advocacy of Glad. Like many such publications, it thanked the supporters of the glade and listed them. Some lawyers (eg Walter Deliner) and firms (including Gibson Dun, Paul Weis and Wilmarhail) were listed as providing legal assistance.
Another list thanked financial supporters including Matt Demon, Elton John AIDS Foundation and Wales Fargo. And here, finally, we find Suzmann. In Winter 2018, the firm is listed for pleasure between $ 3,000 and $ 4,999 in the six -column finals on Glad Brief, Page 11 on Page 11.
The mystery was solved.
Certainly, the problem is that GLAD is constitutionally protected under speech and the first amendment rights of the Union. That rule is clear since Naacp v. Alabama (1958) And has been done Strong Above Time,
Thus, in defending an order, which illegally retaliate against Suzmann for ideas expressed in a representative ability, the government expanded the scope of its retaliation to include a charitable contribution – as well as adding an additional violation to the clear list on the face of the order. The government defended the post that the President can issue punitive executive orders based on a charitable contribution to the advocating organizations, which he dislikes, a stance that is spread beyond the law firms.
Today happiness is a goal; Tomorrow it can be the right-shout Pacific Legal Foundation.
I have sympathy for government lawyers to defend these orders. I suspect that he had this in his mind when he applied for jobs. It would have been embarrassing to face a district court, who did not know the basic information about the Suzman’s order, and it was a duty -bound law to track the answer.
As a strategic case, however, the answer was worse than inability to provide an answer. One of the more important rules of lawyling is the “first rule of the hole”: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
But the original point is more worrying. It is claimed that a president may threaten a business because he dislikes giving his charitable, it should not be taken seriously. From the 1950s, free speech from the point of view of jurisprudence, and supports the system of freedom of expression, this claim is madness.
The government was ready to create such an absurd claim, each district court confirms a point that is dealt with one of these orders, and which should understand the DC circuit Perkins as case Head in your own way. It needs to stop here, and it needs to stop now.
David McGowon is a professor of Competition and Innovation Act at San Diego School of Law University.
