Susman Godfrey fights Executive Order

 

Fox News to Pay $787.5 Million to Settle Defamation Claims Brought by Susman Godfrey Client, Dominion Voting Systems

Susman Godfrey the Houston-founded powerhouse national litigation firm's client, Dominion Voting Systems, and Fox News reached a $787.5 million settlement to resolve Dominion’s massive defamation suit against Fox, just before jury trial was to commence in Delaware Superior Court.

In March 2021, Dominion filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox over claims that Fox News and its commentators relentlessly stated that Dominion’s voting machines were at the center of a vast conspiracy in the 2020 election to steal votes from President Donald Trump and swing them to his Democratic challenger Joe Biden. This historic settlement, which is believed to be the largest defamation-related settlement ever struck, put an end to that lawsuit. 

4.18.2023

 Susman Godfrey fights Executive Order to Federal Agencies to Cancel Contracts, and Align with Trump

By George Conk

AS five more `big law' firms reach deals with Trump  it is fair to ask what makes the compliant like Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps differ from the fighters such as Susman Godfrey and Wilmer Hale?  Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft agreed to do free legal work on causes the White House supports.  Has Trump made them "an offer they can't refuse", or did they falter in the lawyers' duty to give independent advice to clients, and to uphold the rule of law? [New York Times, April 11, 2025]

But some have chosen to fight, as has the firm Susman Godfrey.   On another front - that of higher education a demand by acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin to "cease teach[ing] and promot[ing] DEI" was met by   Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor's answer: " The First Amendment, however, guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it"

 Donald Trump has issued another broadside Executive Order against a law firm. Styled Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey, Trump demands that federal government agencies "terminate" any contracts with the Susman firm, and "otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government)" 

The order declares:

Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.  Susman also funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology, and it supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.

Susman's sins?  Beyond the catalog below* One can reasonably infer that the firm's massive settlement of its lawsuit against Trump-allied Fox News which falsely asserted that the voting machine company manipulated results, giving Joe Biden victory over Dominion's victim - Donald J. Trump.

In response to the executive order filed by the administration on April 9th, 2025, Susman Godfrey issued the following statement:

“Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”

Unlike other prominent law firms which bent a knee* and promised to devote millions to causes Trump favors, Susman Godfrey denounced the Executive Order and vowed to fight, saying:

On April 11, 2025 Susman Godfrey filed a complaint against the Executive Office of the President, twenty five Departments and agencies, and 30 high level officers in their "official capacity". Read that and other filings related to the litigation here. At the time of the filing, Susman Godfrey declared:

“The executive order targeting Susman Godfrey is unconstitutional and retaliatory. No administration should be allowed to punish lawyers for simply doing their jobs, protecting Americans and their constitutional right to the legal process. But this goes far beyond law firms and lawyers. Today it is our firm under attack, but tomorrow it could be any of us. As officers of the court, we are duty-bound to take on this fight against the illegal executive order.”

*The Trump April 9  executive order asserts: 

Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.  Susman also funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology, and it supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.

Trump charges that the law firm "administers a program where it offers financial awards and employment opportunities only to “students of color.” My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” 

For these reasons Trump's order  directs Department heads to "suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Susman, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest."  The order goes further:

Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with Susman and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract. 

(b)  The heads of agencies shall review all contracts with Susman or with entities that disclose doing business with Susman under subsection (a) of this section.  To the extent permitted by law, the heads of agencies shall:

(i)   take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Susman has been hired to perform any service; and

(ii)  otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government)

###### 

 

Trump, Antisemtism, and Academia - Christopher Browning - New York Review

 Trump, Antisemtism, and Academia - Christopher Browning - New York Review

On March 10, three days after the Trump administration canceled federal grants and contracts worth $400 million at Columbia University, the Department of Education sent a letter to sixty universities and colleges warning of similar consequences if they did not protect the safety of their Jewish students, including “uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities.” This was accompanied by a statement from the secretary of education, Linda McMahon, which said, in part, that the Jewish students at these universities and colleges “continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year.”

I have spent my teaching career at three of these schools: Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington, where I taught for twenty-five years; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where I taught for fifteen years; and the University of Washington in Seattle, where in retirement I taught as a visiting professor for two quarters. At all of them I regularly taught a highly enrolled course on the history of the Holocaust. During my career I also published eight books on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, three of which won the National Jewish Book Award in the Holocaust category. In short, I am not unfamiliar with the phenomenon of antisemitism as it has manifested itself in history.

In 2016 President Trump’s election campaign produced two notorious ads: one featuring Hillary Clinton against a background of hundred-dollar bills and a Star of David, and another promising protection against global special interests and featuring the portraits of three Jewish financiers, Janet Yellen, George Soros, and Lloyd Blankfein. Both ads were blatant renditions of the classic antisemitic smear of Jewish money and Jewish financiers as the sources of power behind an opponent. In August 2017, at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, demonstrators marched with swastika and Confederate flags in a Nazi-style torchlit parade, chanting the Nazi slogans “Blood and Soil” and “Jews will not replace us.” Responding to this incident, Trump found there to be “fine people” on “both sides.”

Big Law's billion $$ to meet Trump's demands

 AXIOS

1 big thing: Big Law's billion

Data: Axios research. Chart: Axios Visuals

America's most prestigious law firms have agreed to provide almost $1 billion worth of legal work to President Trump — and that total will likely grow, Axios' Sam Baker reports.

• Trump announced deals with 5 firms yesterday. He's now gotten the giants of Big Law to pledge a combined $940 million in pro bono legal work for conservative causes.

👀 Catch up quick: Trump began this process by signing executive orders targeting firms that had employed or represented his critics.

• The first firm to cut a deal — Paul Weiss — argued that $40 million in pro bono work was a small price to pay compared to the money, clients and even top talent it could have lost if it chose to fight.
• As more firms have capitulated, Trump has been able to extract significantly bigger concessions using significantly less leverage, even from firms with which he had no personal grievance.

🔎 Four of yesterday's agreements came from firms that were placed under investigation for their internal diversity policies — a less severe threat than Trump's early tactic of revoking lawyers' security clearances.

• They each agreed to provide $125 million worth of work on issues that both Trump and the firms support.

The other side: Three of the prestigious law firms targeted by Trump have opted to fight his threats in court rather than make a dea

Eisenhower vs. Warren: The Battle for Civil Rights and Liberties - Book refview

 

Eisenhower vs. Warren: The Battle for Civil Rights and Liberties

By Charles Dresow

James F. Simon’s, “Eisenhower vs. Warren: The Battle for Civil Rights and Liberties,” is a compelling study of the relationship between a president and chief justice at a critical time in the history of civil rights. Given today’s tense atmosphere between the judiciary and the chief executive, the book is especially timely. Mr. Simon begins with a summary of the often forgotten fact that Chief Justice Earl Warren had a long and influential career in California prior to President Eisenhower appointing him to the United States Supreme Court. Among other accomplishments, he was the District Attorney of Alameda County, the Attorney General of California, and eventually Governor of California during World War II. Although the book primarily focuses on Warren’s relationship with Eisenhower, it is worth pondering that the man who authored the Brown v. Board of Education opinion which led to the legal desegregation of our society also was a wholehearted supporter of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Simon briefly discusses Warren’s support for internment but the primary focus of the book is on Brown and Eisenhower and Warren’s disagreements over it.

Eisenhower’s pre-presidential history is much better remembered than Warren’s earlier years. As a general, Eisenhower commanded the allied forces who liberated Europe during World War II. He was known as a consensus builder who was able to hold together a coalition of allies in the liberation of Europe and effectively manage some of the very difficult personalities who served under him. As President, Eisenhower’s directives were critical in the final steps of the desegregation of the military and other federal programs. As President of Columbia University after World War II, Eisenhower staunchly supported academic freedom and opposed faculty loyalty oaths.

Simon uses the loyalty oath controversy to paint the first contrast between Eisenhower and Warren. In the late 1940s and early 1950s at the height of the anti-communist Red Scare movement, Senator Joseph McCarthy led a movement to have professors at colleges take a “loyalty oath,” in which they would profess that they were not communists and did not support communism or the overthrow of the United States Government. Professors faced termination if they refused. Eisenhower was an outspoken advocate of academic freedom and went on record opposing any loyalty oaths on the grounds that they restricted academic freedom. Warren initially opposed the oaths, but then in his role as governor of California supported legislation that required a loyalty oath of all California state employees, which of course included the public university system. It is fascinating to read how both Eisenhower and Warren responded to infringements of civil liberties during World War II and the early cold war/red scare era. It is useful background for the main portion of the book, which is a compelling story of how Brown v. Board of Education fractured the relationship between Eisenhower and Warren.

Perkins Coie FACTS

 Perkins Coie - a major Seattle based law firm - has come under attack by Trump.

HERE they chronicle the responses - massive support from within the profession.

Supreme Court leaves aliens in Salvadoran Prison - J.G.G. v. Trump

The United States Supreme Court in a Per Curiam opinion, over dissents, has vacated the TO issued by Chief Judge James Boasberg barring the transportation and detention in a Slavaforan prison of alleged members of a Venexuelan gang, asserted to to be agents o that government. 

 

Against the backdrop of the U. S. Government’s unprecedented deportation of dozens of immigrants to a foreign prison without due process, a majority of this Court sees fit to vacate the District Court’s order. The reason, apparently, is that the majority thinks plaintiffs’ claims should have been styled as habeas actions and filed in the districts of their detention. In reaching that result, the majority flouts well-established limits on its jurisdiction, creates new law on the emergency docket, and elides the serious threat our intervention poses to the lives of individual detainees.

Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting in Trump v. J.G.G.  [April 7, 2025]

By Steve Vladeck:

Re: Trump v. J.G.G.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-160824388?source=queue

I’ve always thought the real takeaways are to be had from the patterns of the Court’s decisions, not any one ruling.

But the more I read the Court’s Monday night ruling in Trump v. J.G.G., in which a 5-4 majority vacated a pair of temporary restraining orders entered by Chief Judge Boasberg in the Alien Enemy Act case, the more I think that this ruling really is a harbinger, and a profoundly alarming one, at that. To be clear, it’s not a sweeping win for the Trump administration; the Court did not suggest that what Trump is doing is legal, or, just as bad, that it might not be subject to judicial review. Indeed, the Court went out of its way to emphasize that individuals detained under the Act are entitled to due process, including meaningful judicial review.

But much like last Friday’s ruling in the Department of Education grants case, it’s still a ruling by a Court that seems willing to hide behind less-than-obvious legal artifices to make it harder for federal courts to actually restrain conduct by the current administration that everyone believes to be unlawful. As in that decision, here, a 5-4 majority has made it much harder for litigants to bring systemic challenges to what the Trump administration is doing. And especially in the broader context in which the Alien Enemy Act litigation, specifically, has unfolded, the justices in the majority got there b

ACLU, libertarians unite to renounce Trump Order against Perkins Coie law firm

 

The American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae,  has joined with a string of organizations which epmhasize free expression - such as the Cato Institute and FIRE - the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and others have joined to support the Perkins Coie law firm which, like others, has come to oppose many of Trump's policies.

****

 President Trump has singled out one of the nation’s largest law firms for serious, potentially business-ending sanctions by executive fiat, citing the firm’s past representation of his political opponents and its “partisan lawsuits against the United States.” The President’s action violates fundamental First Amendment freedoms and other constitutional protections. More generally, it is an attack on the independence of the legal profession. In the weeks since this Court issued its temporary restraining order, President Trump has signed executive orders imposing similar sanctions on several other law

Perkins Coie: 504 law firms as amicus oppose Exec Orders vs. Law Firms

Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice , D.C., D.C.  - Docket

 Regrettably the statement of the 504 law firms amicus brief by former Solicitor General Donald Verilli, et al. is entirely true:

The Executive Order (which is now subject to a temporary restraining order) should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles. 

 

 This amicus brief is filed on behalf of many of this Nation’s leading law firms.2 Although we do not take this step lightly, our abiding commitment to preserving the integrity of the American legal system leaves us no choice but to join together to oppose the March 6, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” (the “Executive Order”) that is at issue in this litigation. The Executive Order (which is now subject to a temporary restraining order) should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles.

As is the statement of Fordham Law Professor Bruce Green who directs our Stein Center for Law & Ethics.:

 As a result of the Executive Order, law finns will be governed in their legal representations not only by professional conduct rules adopted and enforced by the courts, but by a fear of angering the President. Law finns seeking to avoid a similar Executive Order will have an incentive to eschew "reasonably available means" to advance their clients' lawful objectives that the President may find objectionable. This fonn of regulation by presidential whim, therefore, threatens to undermine the judicial regulation that requires lawyers to represent clients' zealously and not to subordinate clients' interests to lawyers' own self-interest. A law firm that fails to pursue a client's lawful objectives zealously and diligently out of concern for losing other clients' business would be prioritizing its own business interests in violation of conflict-of-interest rules. 

Some of our most prestigious law firms have already broken under the pressure of Donald Trump's thuggery.  Among them are New York based Skadden Arps,  Paul Weiss, and Millbank Tweed - three firms which I have long held in high regard.  The list of the compliant is still growing.   As the New Republic observes they have, to their shame, capitulated, promising millions in "pro bono" services as tribute to causes approved by the tyrant. Fortunately we now have 504 law firms that have joined together to issue a grave warning of the dangers posed by Donald Trump's bullying. Represented by former Solicitor General Donald Verilli the firms demonstrate their adherence to basic principles of rule of law. - GWC

PERKINS COIE LLP v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al, Docket No. 1:25-cv-00716 (D.D.C. Mar 11, 2025), Court Docket

ARGUMENT 1. The Executive Order at issue in this case, and the others like it, take direct aim at several of the Nation’s leading law firms and seek to cow every other firm, large and small, into submission. On the basis of almost-decade-old allegations, the Executive Order subjects an entire firm, as well as its clients and personnel, to draconian punishment—including the revocation of its attorneys’ security clearances, the potential loss of clients that contract with the United States, and denial of access to federal buildings and facilities. Such disabilities would threaten the survival of any law firm. 

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 

This amicus brief is filed on behalf of many of this Nation’s leading law firms.2 Although we do not take this step lightly, our abiding commitment to preserving the integrity of the American legal system leaves us no choice but to join together to oppose the March 6, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” (the “Executive Order”) that is at issue in this litigation. 

The Executive Order (which is now subject to a temporary restraining order) should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles. But something even more fundamental is at stake. In recent weeks, the President has issued not one but five executive orders imposing punitive sanctions on leading law firms in undisguised retaliation for representations that the firm, or its former partners, have undertaken, and more may be in the offing.3 Those Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself. The judiciary should act with resolve—now—to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases. Cf. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

79 Law School Deans Renounce Trump Sanctions of Law firms

I am proud to report that our Dean at Fordham Joseph Landau is a signer; as is my former student Jerry Dickinson, the Dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. - GWC

 79 Law School Deans Renounce Trump Sanctions of Law firms

As deans of law schools, we have a special responsibility for the legal profession. Recently, the federal government has imposed significant sanctions on the law firms of Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block seemingly because of the clients they and their lawyers represented and litigation in which their lawyers participated.

 

We write to reaffirm basic principles: The government should not punish lawyers and law firms for the clients they represent, absent specific findings that such representation was illegal or unethical. Punishing lawyers for their representation and advocacy violates the First Amendment and undermines the Sixth Amendment. We thus speak as legal educators, responsible for training the next generation of lawyers, in condemning any government efforts to punish lawyers or their firms based on the identity of their clients or for their zealous lawful and ethical advocacy.

Dorf on law: How to break a judiciary

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/04/how-to-break-judiciary-part-1-choosing.html

The MAGA Culture War Comes for Georgetown Law - David French

 The MAGA Culture War Comes for Georgetown Law - David French New York Times

This might sound like a funny thing to say, but I’ve rarely read a more unconstitutional letter.

On Monday, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, sent the dean of Georgetown University Law Center, a Catholic law school, a letter that said, “It has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown Law School continues to teach and promote D.E.I. This is unacceptable.”

Martin said that he’d begun an “inquiry” into the school and demanded to know whether it had eliminated all D.E.I. — which he does not define, but in right-wing circles tends to refer to any action at all designed to increase diversity or honor historically marginalized people — from the school and its curriculum. He also asked, “If D.E.I. is found in your courses or teaching in any way, will you move swiftly to remove it?”

This short letter, which was addressed to William Treanor, the dean of the law school, continued with the declaration that “no applicant for our fellows program, our summer internship or employment in our office who is a student or affiliated with a law school or university that continues to teach and utilize D.E.I. will be considered.”

Even a first-year law student knows that the federal government cannot dictate the viewpoint and curriculum of a private Christian school, yet here was a federal prosecutor opening an inquiry into a Jesuit school’s protected speech.

*****

Department of Education demands schools and colleges be race-blind

 

Gate to Harvard campus, Cambridge

Department of Homeland Security demands schools and colleges be race-blind - Boston Globe

 The United States Department of Education - though it is facing dismantling - has issued a series of demands framed as demands for ocmpliance with the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case styled students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard - GWC

“Oversight and accountability for biased programs that fuel antisemitism. Programs and departments that fuel antisemitic harassment must be reviewed and necessary changes made to address bias, improve viewpoint diversity, and end ideological capture.

“Disciplinary reform and consistent accountability. Harvard has an obligation to consistently and proactively enforce its existing disciplinary policies, ensuring that senior administrative leaders are responsible for final decisions. Reforms must include a comprehensive mask ban (with medical and religious exemptions, given identification is always displayed) and a clarified time, place, and manner policy. Harvard must review and report on disciplinary actions for antisemitic rule violations since October 7, 2023.

Related

Trump administration sends Harvard list of demands to avoid cancelation of billions in federal fundingWhat’s in that $9 billion the Trump administration is reviewing at Harvard?

“Student group accountability. Recognized and unrecognized student groups, and their leadership, must be held accountable for violations of Harvard policy.

 

---

---

“Governance and leadership reforms. Harvard must make meaningful governance reforms to improve its organizational structure to foster clear lines of authority and accountability, and to empower faculty and administrative leaders who are committed to implementing the changes indicated in this letter.

“Merit-based admissions reform. Harvard must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies; cease all preferences based on race, color, or national origin in admissions throughout its undergraduate, graduate, and other programs; and demonstrate through structural and personnel action that these changes are durable.

 

---

“Merit-based hiring reform. Harvard must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies; cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in hiring 

Trump Goes Crazy on Tariffs - Krugman

His numbers make no sense - Krugman

 

Trump Goes Crazy on Tariffs

By Paul Krugman

Just a quick update after Trump’s Rose Garden speech.

I guess it’s just possible that when we get details about the Trump tariffs they will be lower than what he just announced, but based on what he said, he’s gone full-on crazy. It’s not just that he appears to be imposing much higher tariffs than almost anyone expected. He’s also making false claims about our trading partners — not sure in this case whether they’re lies, because he may be truly ignorant — that will both enrage them and make it very hard to back down.

Another one bites the dust: Millbank Tweed buckles under to Trump

 from Bloomberg News 

Milbank Signs Deal With Trump to Avoid Executive Order 

Meghan Tribe

Reporter

Milbank has struck a deal with President Donald Trump to avoid an executive order as the law firm agreed to spend $100 million in pro bono services.

Milbank has also pledged to not engage in any “illegal DEI discrimination” and will not deny representation to clients because of political views of individual lawyers, according to the agreement posted Wednesday on Trump’s Truth Social platform.

Milbank approached the Trump administration “stating their resolve to help end the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession,” the White House said in the statement.

The announcement comes less than 24 hours after Trump announced a similar deal with Willkie Farr & Gallagher in which that New York-founded law firm also pledged $100 million in pro bono services during the Trump administration. Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom also reached similar deals.

Eric Adams: Judge Ho dismisses charges with prejudice

Mayor Eric Adams: Judge Dale E. Ho dismisses charges "with prejudice "

New York's Mayor Eric Adams has gotten what he sought: the dismissal with prejudie of charges that he corruptly obtained benefits from the government of Turkey.  He will face his challengers without facing trial.  But U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho - who at Adams request dismissed the charges with prejudice - lambasts the Department of Justice for improperly attempting to hold Adams hostage. In a 78 page opinion he writes:

The DOJ does not seek to end this case once and for all.  Rather its request, if granted, would leave  Mayor Adams under the specter of reindictment at essentially anytime and for essentially any reason.

On February 14, 2025, the Department ofJustice ("DOJ") filed a motion seeking to dismiss without prejudice the Indictment against New YorkCity Mayor Eric Adams, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a).1 ECF No. 122 (the “Rule 48(a) Motion"). DOJ's Motion states that dismissal of this case is justified for several reasons, including because “continuing these proceedings would interfere with” the Mayor's ability to govern, thereby threatening  federal immigration initiatives and policies.” Id. ¶ 6.

A critical feature of DOJ's Motion is that it seeks dismissal without prejudice—that is, DOJ seeks to abandon its prosecution of Mayor Adams at this time, while reserving the right to reinitiate the case in the future. DOJ does not seek to end this case once and for all. Rather, its request, if granted, would leave Mayor Adams under the specter ofreindictment at essentially any time, and for essentially any reason.

The Court declines, in its limited discretion under Rule 48(a), to endorse that outcome.

Instead, it dismisses this case with prejudice—meaning that the Government may not bring the charges in the Indictment against Mayor Adams in the future. In light of DOJ's rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor's freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the  administration,  and that his freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement  priorities of the administration, and that he  that he might be more beholden to the demands of the  federal government that to the wishes of his own constituents.

 That appearance is inevitable,and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice.

A Billion at stake: Trump administration targets Harvard

The U.S. Department of Education - whcih Trump plans to shutter - will not close until it has strangled Harvard and other leading universities.
 

Citing anti-semitism  U.S. Department of Education threatens $ 9 billion in funding for Harvard March 31, 2025

Today, the Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) announced a comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard University and its affiliates. This review is part of the ongoing efforts of the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. 

 

The Task Force will review the more than $255.6 million in contracts between Harvard University, its affiliates and the Federal Government. The review also includes the more than $8.7 billion in multi-year grant commitments to Harvard University and its affiliates to ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities. 

“Harvard has served as a symbol of the American Dream for generations – the pinnacle aspiration for students all over the world to work hard and earn admission to the storied institution,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination - all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry - has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus.” 

Trump Cannot Win his War on History - David Blight

Trump Cannot Win His War on History

'By David W. Blight

Dr. Blight is the president of the Organization of American Historians.  March 31, 2025 - New York Times

On Thursday President Trump issued an executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”
In Mr. Trump’s customary bluster, the order bursts with accusations against unnamed persons who are presumably my fellow historians and museum curators for our “concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our nation’s history.”

The order’s repeated invocation of the Smithsonian Institution echoes now-familiar right-wing goals outlined in Project 2025 and elsewhere: ending the alleged “woke” agendas on race and gender, creating “parents’ rights” and school choices and promoting history aligned with founders’ “values.” [See National Museum of African American History]

According to the president, “objective facts” have been replaced with a “distorted narrative driven by ideology.” And then comes that penetrating epithet, the order’s organizing logic: the desire to end the “revisionist movement” carried out by unnamed historians.

The order is nothing less than a declaration of political war on the historians’ profession, our training and integrity, as well as on the freedom — in the form of curious minds — of anyone who seeks to understand our country by visiting museums or historic sites.

  

Anti-abortion Alabama AG barred from threat to prosecute out of state aid

U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson

 Yellowhammer Fund v. Alabama Attorney General Marshall

Case 2:23-cv-00450-MHT-KFP Middle District, Alabama

Myron H. Thompson, D.J. 

Previously, this court wrote in denying a motion to dismiss: “At its core, this case is simply about whether a State may prevent people within its borders from going to another State, and from assisting others in going to another State, to engage in lawful conduct there.” Yellowhammer Fund v. Att’y Gen. of Ala. Steve Marshall, 733 F. Supp. 3d 1167, 1174 (M.D. Ala. 2024) (Thompson, J.). The court now answers no, a State cannot. 

Court stays DHS Order re Venezuelans in Temporary Protected Status

 

U.S. District Judge Chen Stays DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's Order to deport Immigrants to Venezuela. March 31, 2025

 At issue is whether this Court should temporarily postpone actions by Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, taken against over 600,000 Venezuelan nationals who have legal status to reside and work temporarily in the United States. The Secretary’s actions will shortly strip nearly 350,000 of these residents of their protection under the Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) program, subjecting them to possible imminent deportation back to Venezuela, a country so rife with economic and political upheaval and danger that the State Department has categorized Venezuela as a “Level 4: Do Not Travel” country “due to the high risk of wrongful detentions, terrorism, kidnapping, the arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, poor health infrastructure.” https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/venezuela-traveladvisory.html (last visited 3/30/2025).

Although the Secretary’s actions appear predicated on negative stereotypes casting class-wide aspersions on their character (insinuating they were released from Venezuelan prisons and mental health facilities and imposed huge financial burdens on local communities), the undisputed record establishes that Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries, in fact, have higher education attainment than most U.S. citizens (40-54% have bachelor degrees), have high labor participation rates (80-96%), earn nearly all their personal income (96%), and annually contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and pay hundreds of millions, if not billions, in social security taxes. They also have lower rates of criminality than the general U.S. population.

The Court finds that the Secretary’s action threatens to: inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of persons whose lives, families, and livelihoods will be severely disrupted, cost the United States billions in economic activity, and injure public health and safety in communities throughout the United States. At the same time, the government has failed to identify any real countervailing harm in continuing TPS for Venezuelan beneficiaries. Plaintiffs have also shown they will likely succeed in demonstrating that the actions taken by the Secretary are unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus. 

For these reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to postpone the challenged actions pending final adjudication of the merits of this case.

EEOC challenges many law firms on "DEI"

 The ironies are too many to state.  But her is one: the EEOC's demand for Perkins Coie, a letter

of the sort addressed to about twenty law firms.

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/Law_Firm_Letters_-_03.17.2025.pdf

Harvard law faculty divided: Adrian Vermeule dissents in tendentious open letter to students

There has never been  a time when U.S. universities were in an adversarial relationship with our government on a par with this one.  Even the Smithsonian - custodian of our national museums has been lambasted as anti-American in a Presidential Fact Sheet.  In a move designed for Saturday Night Live  the former leader of World Wrestling Entertainment, is now Education Secretary.  Secretary Linda McMahon has announced that a "Joint Task Force on Anti-semitism" is reviewing $9 billion in federal grants to Harvard University.  That move follows Columbia University's ongoing negotiations to restore hundreds of millions in canceled funds.  And it succeeds the capitulation of two leading law firms Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps.  Two firms - Jenner & Block  and Wilmer Hale have filed suit to block the retaliatory Executive Order. Andrew Weissman, a former Jenner partner, was a lead prosecutor in the investigation of Donald Trump led by former Wilmer partner Robert S. Mueller.

Today 1,900 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine signed an open letter warning of the danger of the Trump administration's attacks on science.  For exxample in the last month $450 million in federal funds for HIV research have been cut.

Today the majority of the Harvard Law School faculty in an open letter declared: 

As the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide: “A

lawyer is ... an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for

the quality of justice.”

The rule of law is imperiled when government leaders:

• single out lawyers and law firms for retribution based on their lawful and ethical

representation of clients disfavored by the government, undermining the Sixth

Amendment;

• threaten law firms and legal clinics for their lawyers’ pro bono work or prior

government service;

• relent on those arbitrary threats based on public acts of submission and outlays of funds

for favored causes; and

• punish people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern.

While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are

all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly

condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described.

But a prominent dissenting voice is that of Adrian Vermeule.  A conservative convert to Catholicism he has nonetheless defended the Catholic social gospel and co-authored with Cass Sunstein a defense of the administrative state Law and Leviathan, Redeeming the Administrative State. And at a conference at the conservative Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio Vermeule declared "there is no  dismantling the administrative state".

Despite his departure in that respect from  conservative confreres Vermeule dissents angrily from the bulk of his Harvard colleagues about current threats to the rule of law.  Although Vermeule asserts he is writing more in sorrow than anger he proves to be very angry, finding hypocrisy in those who are to his left, writing:

Where were the letter’s signatories when federal prosecutors took the unprecedented step of bringing dozens of criminal charges against a former president, who also happened to be the leading electoral opponent of the then-incumbent president? Where were the signatories when Jeff Clark, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and other lawyers were disbarred or threatened with disbarment, and indeed prosecuted, for their representation of President Trump? Was this not a threat to the rule of law? Where were the signatories when radical activists menaced Supreme Court Justices in their homes, or when a mob hammered on the doors of the Supreme Court itself? 

Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman were indeed disbarred - but it was not "for their representation of Presdient Trump".  The case against Giuliani is indeed substantial; as is that against Clark for dishonest conduct in an attempt to overturn Georgia election results; as is the case against John Eastman who was found ineligible to practice law after a five month trial before the California Bar Court.

EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas Sends Letters to 20 Law Firms Requesting Information About DEI-Related Employment Practices

 Abandoning efforts to overcome our long history of racial discrimination that impoverished minorities.

The tone was set by the Chief Justice in Parents Involved vs. Seattle Community Schools when John Roberts remarked that the way to stop discrimination by race is to stop discriminating by race.

What the Justice - and today's EEOC - are blind to is that race blindness ratifies the status quo.  It forbids any measures to make up for any historic disparities - unless they are the direct fesult of explicitly racially discriminatory practices such as are exemplified not simply by the notorious "Jim Crow" laws, but largely thorugh such long-tolerated or mandated practices as racially discriminatory covenants in deeds, or rqacial "redlining" , as recounted by Richard Rothstein in his history The Color of Law.  And dramatically in Arc of Justice Northwestern historian Kevin Boyle's prise-winning history of the birth of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. - GWC

EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas Sends Letters to 20 Law Firms Requesting Information About DEI-Related Employment Practices:  

The letter to Perkins Coie begins:

Re: Review of Perkins Coie LLP’s Compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

Dear Mr. Butswinkas: Based on public statements and court filings1 by Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie”), I am seeking information about the firm’s employment practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII) prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.2 

 Under Title VII, an employer initiative, policy, program, or practice may be unlawful if it involves an employer, or other covered entity, taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic.3 

Title VII also bars employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a way that affects their status or deprives them of employment opportunities, including in voluntary employee groups and activities which are employer sponsored.4 It is the responsibility of the EEOC to enforce the provisions of Title VII with respect to private employers. 

Perkins Coie publicly has touted its hiring practices, including its diversity fellowships, which have historically been limited to “students of color,”5 as “help[ing] create and foster one of   the strongest and most diverse talent pipelines in the legal profession”6 and “designed to increase the representation of racially diverse lawyers at the firm.”7 Merely five months ago, Perkins Coie announced it had “achieved Mansfield 7.0 Certification Plus status for another year from Diversity Lab, which measures how leading law firms have affirmatively considered women, lawyers of color, [and] LGBTQ+ lawyers . . . for recruitment, partnership promotions, and management positions, among other significant benchmarks.”8 In addition, in 2020, Microsoft’s Law Firm Diversity Program recognized Perkins Coie as its “top performing law firm” when it came to meeting Microsoft’s diversity goals, demonstrating a five year plan that “achieved impressive progress . . . growing diverse attorney hours on Microsoft matters by 12.3 percentage points (from 56.7% to 69%);” a 10.3 point increase in overall diverse partner representation at the firm (from 33.6% to 43.9%);” and “great progress in diverse representation on its management committee, with over 64% of their committee members identifying as women, minorities, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities and veterans.”9 In fact, since at least 2012, Perkins Coie has been a leader in a third-party diversity scorecard that scores law firms based on their “percentile ranking of the representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, gender and LBGTQ+ per level and the overall disclosure of DEI data versus firms of a similar size.”10

***

...the strongest and most diverse talent pipelines in the legal profession”6 and “designed to increase the representation of racially diverse lawyers at the firm.”7 Merely five months ago, Perkins Coie announced it had “achieved Mansfield 7.0 Certification Plus status for another year from Diversity Lab, which measures how leading law firms have affirmatively considered women, lawyers of color, [and] LGBTQ+ lawyers . . . for recruitment, partnership promotions, and management positions, among other significant benchmarks.”8 In addition, in 2020, Microsoft’s Law Firm Diversity Program recognized Perkins Coie as its “top performing law firm” when it came to meeting Microsoft’s diversity goals, demonstrating a five year plan that “achieved impressive progress . . . growing diverse attorney hours on Microsoft matters by 12.3 percentage points (from 56.7% to 69%);” a 10.3 point increase in overall diverse partner representation at the firm (from 33.6% to 43.9%);” and “great progress in diverse representation on its management committee, with over 64% of their committee members identifying as women, minorities, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities and veterans.”9 

In fact, since at least 2012, Perkins Coie has been a leader in a third-party diversity scorecard that scores law firms based on their “percentile ranking of the representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, gender and LBGTQ+ per level and the overall disclosure of DEI data versus firms of a similar size.”10  in part—on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, in violation of Title VII. 

I believe you can be of assistance in helping to identify all relevant information I might consider. As an initial request, please provide responses to the questions outlined below. Please also preserve all relevant records. Internships, Fellowships, and Scholarships In public statements and court filings, Perkins Coie has acknowledged that it has had a 1L Diversity Fellowship Program since 1991 and a similar 2L Diversity Fellowship Program since 2021. Perkins Coie also admitted in court filings that, at least until 2023, those hiring programs had a “requirement that participants belong to a group historically underrepresented in the legal profession” and appears to concede that those programs previously limited participation by race and “asked or required [applicants] to identify their race when applying.”14 

Perkins Coie also has asserted in court filings that it changed the criteria for its diversity fellowship programs in 2023.15 1. Please describe the application and selection criteria used by Perkins Coie for its 1L Diversity Fellowship Program from: (a) 2015 to 2023; and (b) from 2023 to the present.