Bulwark Takes: MAJOR Trump Loss! Judge Rules Order on Law Firms UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Release Date: May 3, 2025
Host/Author: The Bulwark
Hosted by: Sam Stein, Managing Editor at The Bulwark

Introduction

In the May 3, 2025 episode of Bulwark Takes, host Sam Stein delves into a landmark judicial decision that marks a significant setback for former President Donald Trump's administration. The episode, titled "MAJOR Trump Loss! Judge Rules Order on Law Firms UNCONSTITUTIONAL," provides an in-depth analysis of Judge Beryl Howell's ruling against Trump's contentious executive orders targeting major law firms.

Background: Trump's Campaign Against Law Firms

Sam Stein opens the discussion by outlining Trump's targeted actions against prominent law firms perceived as adversarial to his administration. Early in his tenure, Trump signaled intent to pressure firms like Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie:

• Paul Weiss opted to settle, providing Trump with approximately $40 million in pro bono services, marking the first instance of capitulation.

• Perkins Coie, contrastingly, chose to resist and became one of four firms to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Trump's executive orders.

Stein emphasizes that Trump's strategy extended to nearly a dozen firms, with about nine opting to settle, setting a precedent of institutional acquiescence to Trumpism.

Sam Stein [02:30]: "Paul Weiss decided that it was gonna go and craft a settlement with Trump. They ended up doing so... Perkins Coie decided, no, they're gonna fight it."

The Executive Orders: Scope and Implications

Trump's executive orders against law firms had two primary components:

1. Revocation of Security Clearances: Lawyers at targeted firms were barred from obtaining security clearances, restricting their access to government facilities.

2. Pressure on Government Contractors: The orders extended to government contractors, discouraging them from engaging with these law firms.

Stein highlights the strategic significance of security clearances in the legal profession and how these orders were pivotal in Trump's broader attack on dissenting legal entities.

Sam Stein [05:15]: "The idea that lawyers will be denied security clearances in particular plays a really interesting role in why Trump ended up losing this case anyway."

Judge Beryl Howell's Landmark Ruling

The centerpiece of the episode is Judge Beryl Howell's 102-page ruling, which unequivocally struck down Trump's executive orders as unconstitutional. Key points from the ruling include:

• Violation of Constitutional Rights: The orders were found to infringe upon the First and Fifth Amendments, impeding firms' freedom to think, speak, and practice law without governmental coercion.

• Historical Comparison: Judge Howell referenced Shakespeare, noting that Trump's actions echoed the notion of "killing all the lawyers," underscoring the unprecedented nature of the executive overreach.

• Permanent Injunction: Howell permanently barred the executive order from being enforced, marking a significant judicial rebuke of Trump’s tactics.

Sam Stein [10:45]: "She writes, no American president has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this... an extraordinary rebuke."

Repercussions for Acquiescent Firms

The ruling not only challenges Trump’s orders but also casts a critical light on firms that chose to settle:

• Paul Weiss's Settlement: Earlier explanations for settling included fears of existential threats to their business and potential loss of clients.

• Embarrassment for Settling Firms: The annulment of the executive orders reveals that these settlements may have been unnecessary, suggesting that the firms could have legitimately defended their positions.

Stein underscores the embarrassment and reputational damage inflicted on firms like Paul Weiss for capitulating under pressure.

Sam Stein [15:20]: "It's kind of an embarrassment for them... we have fairly concrete evidence that, in fact, they could have prevailed."

Case Study: Microsoft's Firm Switch

A notable development discussed is Microsoft's decision to switch legal representation from Simpson and Thatcher to Jenner and Block following Trump's executive orders:

• Reason for Switch: Microsoft contended that Simpson and Thatcher's willingness to settle demonstrated a lack of commitment to serving their clients' best interests, especially in high-stakes government-related cases.

• Impact: This move not only underscores the potential long-term damage to firms that acquiesced but also highlights the market's recognition of integrity and resistance to political pressure as valuable traits in legal representation.

Sam Stein [20:00]: "Microsoft argued that it was harmful to have a law firm that they felt capitulated Trump because they couldn't be quite certain that that law firm had its best interests at heart."

Emergence of New Legal Firms

The episode highlights the rise of firms like Lowell and Associates, founded by prominent lawyer Abby Lol, aimed at representing individuals targeted by Trump’s administration:

• Strategic Positioning: By refusing to capitulate, these firms are capitalizing on the market gap created by the executive orders, attracting clients who seek robust legal defense against politicized actions.

• Market Dynamics: This shift illustrates the free market's response, where resistance to political pressure becomes a competitive advantage, fostering an environment where principled legal representation is rewarded.

Sam Stein [23:30]: "He's trying to generate business by those who are targeted by the president... free market work where firms that did not acquiesce are getting clients because they didn't acquiesce."

National Security vs. Political Vendetta

A critical analysis is presented on the purported national security justification behind Trump's executive orders:

• Legal Counterarguments: Lawyers from non-settling firms argued that the orders lacked genuine national security concerns and were instead driven by political motives.

• Judicial Consensus: The courts agreed, recognizing that the revocation of security clearances post-settlement undermined any national security rationale, exposing the orders as politically motivated.

Sam Stein [28:45]: "This is proof that Trump is just operating out of pure politics and that there is not really an urgent need to review security clearances as stated in the order."

Conclusion and Future Outlook

Sam Stein concludes by acknowledging the significant blow dealt to both Trump’s administration and the firms that chose to settle. While Perkins Coie’s resistance is lauded, the episode anticipates ongoing developments, suggesting that this saga is far from over, with "about 18 more twists and turns" expected.

Sam Stein [32:10]: "Perkins Coy, pretty solid for deciding what it decided to do... we will talk later."

The episode serves as a comprehensive overview of a pivotal moment in the intersection of law, politics, and corporate strategy, highlighting the resilience of legal institutions against political pressure and the enduring importance of constitutional safeguards.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Sam Stein [02:30]: "Paul Weiss decided that it was gonna go and craft a settlement with Trump. They ended up doing so... Perkins Coie decided, no, they're gonna fight it."

• Sam Stein [05:15]: "The idea that lawyers will be denied security clearances in particular plays a really interesting role in why Trump ended up losing this case anyway."

• Sam Stein [10:45]: "She writes, no American president has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this... an extraordinary rebuke."

• Sam Stein [15:20]: "It's kind of an embarrassment for them... we have fairly concrete evidence that, in fact, they could have prevailed."

• Sam Stein [20:00]: "Microsoft argued that it was harmful to have a law firm that they felt capitulated Trump because they couldn't be quite certain that that law firm had its best interests at heart."

• Sam Stein [23:30]: "He's trying to generate business by those who are targeted by the president... free market work where firms that did not acquiesce are getting clients because they didn't acquiesce."

• Sam Stein [28:45]: "This is proof that Trump is just operating out of pure politics and that there is not really an urgent need to review security clearances as stated in the order."

• Sam Stein [32:10]: "Perkins Coy, pretty solid for deciding what it decided to do... we will talk later."

This episode of Bulwark Takes offers a critical examination of judicial independence, the fragility of corporate integrity under political duress, and the pivotal role of legal institutions in upholding constitutional principles.