#wilmerhale — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #wilmerhale, aggregated by home.social.
-
Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.
#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review. -
Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.
#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review. -
Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.
#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review. -
Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.
#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review. -
Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.
#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review. -
DOJ Un-Drops Its Appeal Against Law Firms, Files Brief That Gets The First Amendment Exactly Backwards
-
DOJ Un-Drops Its Appeal Against Law Firms, Files Brief That Gets The First Amendment Exactly Backwards
-
DOJ Un-Drops Its Appeal Against Law Firms, Files Brief That Gets The First Amendment Exactly Backwards
-
DOJ Un-Drops Its Appeal Against Law Firms, Files Brief That Gets The First Amendment Exactly Backwards
-
DOJ Un-Drops Its Appeal Against Law Firms, Files Brief That Gets The First Amendment Exactly Backwards
-
Here we go. #Anthropic sues the Government for labeling it a security risk out of animus. #WilmerHale, one of the #LawFirms that stood up to #Trump's bullying #ExecutiveOrders now gets paid to explain again that the government doesn't get to have hurt feelings.
Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (California N.D. 26-cv-01996) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/anthropic-pbc-v-us-department-of-war/
Five counts, one theme — animus omnia vitiat:
Count I — APA / 10 U.S.C. § 3252 — The "supply chain risk" designation doesn't follow the statute or the facts.
Count II — First Amendment Retaliation — "AI shouldn't autonomously kill people" is protected speech.
Count III — Ultra Vires / Article II — No law lets a President destroy a company by social media post.
Count IV — Fifth Amendment Due Process — You can't de facto debar someone with no notice, no hearing, no findings.
Count V — APA § 558 — Agencies can't impose sanctions outside their delegated authority.
The Trump Administration had a temper tantrum and said "You're not the boss of me, I'm the boss of you. I'll end you!". Anthropic points out that animus is no substitute for #RuleOfLaw.
So why did they sue #Hegseth's #DepartmentOfWar rather than the statutory #DepartmentOfDefense? Because Trump authorized the name, because it shows respect to #Hegseth's sensitive feelings, and because it underscores the ridiculousness of the government tasking #AI to kill (and surveil) people autonomously. #skynet! On the off-chance the judge orders a caption change, their hands are clean and the lawyer's can't point to any act of defiance.
-
Here we go. #Anthropic sues the Government for labeling it a security risk out of animus. #WilmerHale, one of the #LawFirms that stood up to #Trump's bullying #ExecutiveOrders now gets paid to explain again that the government doesn't get to have hurt feelings.
Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (California N.D. 26-cv-01996) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/anthropic-pbc-v-us-department-of-war/
Five counts, one theme — animus omnia vitiat:
Count I — APA / 10 U.S.C. § 3252 — The "supply chain risk" designation doesn't follow the statute or the facts.
Count II — First Amendment Retaliation — "AI shouldn't autonomously kill people" is protected speech.
Count III — Ultra Vires / Article II — No law lets a President destroy a company by social media post.
Count IV — Fifth Amendment Due Process — You can't de facto debar someone with no notice, no hearing, no findings.
Count V — APA § 558 — Agencies can't impose sanctions outside their delegated authority.
The Trump Administration had a temper tantrum and said "You're not the boss of me, I'm the boss of you. I'll end you!". Anthropic points out that animus is no substitute for #RuleOfLaw.
So why did they sue #Hegseth's #DepartmentOfWar rather than the statutory #DepartmentOfDefense? Because Trump authorized the name, because it shows respect to #Hegseth's sensitive feelings, and because it underscores the ridiculousness of the government tasking #AI to kill (and surveil) people autonomously. #skynet! On the off-chance the judge orders a caption change, their hands are clean and the lawyer's can't point to any act of defiance.
-
Here we go. #Anthropic sues the Government for labeling it a security risk out of animus. #WilmerHale, one of the #LawFirms that stood up to #Trump's bullying #ExecutiveOrders now gets paid to explain again that the government doesn't get to have hurt feelings.
Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (California N.D. 26-cv-01996) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/anthropic-pbc-v-us-department-of-war/
Five counts, one theme — animus omnia vitiat:
Count I — APA / 10 U.S.C. § 3252 — The "supply chain risk" designation doesn't follow the statute or the facts.
Count II — First Amendment Retaliation — "AI shouldn't autonomously kill people" is protected speech.
Count III — Ultra Vires / Article II — No law lets a President destroy a company by social media post.
Count IV — Fifth Amendment Due Process — You can't de facto debar someone with no notice, no hearing, no findings.
Count V — APA § 558 — Agencies can't impose sanctions outside their delegated authority.
The Trump Administration had a temper tantrum and said "You're not the boss of me, I'm the boss of you. I'll end you!". Anthropic points out that animus is no substitute for #RuleOfLaw.
So why did they sue #Hegseth's #DepartmentOfWar rather than the statutory #DepartmentOfDefense? Because Trump authorized the name, because it shows respect to #Hegseth's sensitive feelings, and because it underscores the ridiculousness of the government tasking #AI to kill (and surveil) people autonomously. #skynet! On the off-chance the judge orders a caption change, their hands are clean and the lawyer's can't point to any act of defiance.
-
Here we go. #Anthropic sues the Government for labeling it a security risk out of animus. #WilmerHale, one of the #LawFirms that stood up to #Trump's bullying #ExecutiveOrders now gets paid to explain again that the government doesn't get to have hurt feelings.
Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (California N.D. 26-cv-01996) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/anthropic-pbc-v-us-department-of-war/
Five counts, one theme — animus omnia vitiat:
Count I — APA / 10 U.S.C. § 3252 — The "supply chain risk" designation doesn't follow the statute or the facts.
Count II — First Amendment Retaliation — "AI shouldn't autonomously kill people" is protected speech.
Count III — Ultra Vires / Article II — No law lets a President destroy a company by social media post.
Count IV — Fifth Amendment Due Process — You can't de facto debar someone with no notice, no hearing, no findings.
Count V — APA § 558 — Agencies can't impose sanctions outside their delegated authority.
The Trump Administration had a temper tantrum and said "You're not the boss of me, I'm the boss of you. I'll end you!". Anthropic points out that animus is no substitute for #RuleOfLaw.
So why did they sue #Hegseth's #DepartmentOfWar rather than the statutory #DepartmentOfDefense? Because Trump authorized the name, because it shows respect to #Hegseth's sensitive feelings, and because it underscores the ridiculousness of the government tasking #AI to kill (and surveil) people autonomously. #skynet! On the off-chance the judge orders a caption change, their hands are clean and the lawyer's can't point to any act of defiance.
-
So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."
My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)
Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump
-
So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."
My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)
Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump
-
So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."
My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)
Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump
-
So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."
My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)
Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump
-
So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."
My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)
Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump
-
③ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C. 25-cv-00917, decided 2025-05-27, amended 2025-06-26) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/
Executive Order 14250
> The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the #Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no #ExecutiveOrder has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!
... (There are a lot of exclamation marks in this Opinion.) ....
> The Court has found that the Order is unconstitutional and will issue a declaratory judgment to that effect.
— Judge #RichardLeon, Docket 110
> The Court struck down the WilmerHale Order in its entirety and declared it null and void. This declaratory relief runs as to the United States as a whole, yet according to #WilmerHale, defense counsel has refused to notify all United States agencies and officers of this judgment. .... Thus the Court must amend its Order to ensure that no federal agencies or officers are misguidedly enforcing the null and void WilmerHale Order
— Judge Richard Leon, Docket 120
-
③ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C. 25-cv-00917, decided 2025-05-27, amended 2025-06-26) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/
Executive Order 14250
> The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the #Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no #ExecutiveOrder has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!
... (There are a lot of exclamation marks in this Opinion.) ....
> The Court has found that the Order is unconstitutional and will issue a declaratory judgment to that effect.
— Judge #RichardLeon, Docket 110
> The Court struck down the WilmerHale Order in its entirety and declared it null and void. This declaratory relief runs as to the United States as a whole, yet according to #WilmerHale, defense counsel has refused to notify all United States agencies and officers of this judgment. .... Thus the Court must amend its Order to ensure that no federal agencies or officers are misguidedly enforcing the null and void WilmerHale Order
— Judge Richard Leon, Docket 120
-
③ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C. 25-cv-00917, decided 2025-05-27, amended 2025-06-26) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/
Executive Order 14250
> The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the #Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no #ExecutiveOrder has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!
... (There are a lot of exclamation marks in this Opinion.) ....
> The Court has found that the Order is unconstitutional and will issue a declaratory judgment to that effect.
— Judge #RichardLeon, Docket 110
> The Court struck down the WilmerHale Order in its entirety and declared it null and void. This declaratory relief runs as to the United States as a whole, yet according to #WilmerHale, defense counsel has refused to notify all United States agencies and officers of this judgment. .... Thus the Court must amend its Order to ensure that no federal agencies or officers are misguidedly enforcing the null and void WilmerHale Order
— Judge Richard Leon, Docket 120
-
③ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C. 25-cv-00917, decided 2025-05-27, amended 2025-06-26) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/
Executive Order 14250
> The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the #Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no #ExecutiveOrder has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!
... (There are a lot of exclamation marks in this Opinion.) ....
> The Court has found that the Order is unconstitutional and will issue a declaratory judgment to that effect.
— Judge #RichardLeon, Docket 110
> The Court struck down the WilmerHale Order in its entirety and declared it null and void. This declaratory relief runs as to the United States as a whole, yet according to #WilmerHale, defense counsel has refused to notify all United States agencies and officers of this judgment. .... Thus the Court must amend its Order to ensure that no federal agencies or officers are misguidedly enforcing the null and void WilmerHale Order
— Judge Richard Leon, Docket 120
-
"This argument is absurd!" - filled w/ dozens of exclamation marks, this federal judgement hammers the administration. I work at this law firm, so it's great to hear; the DOJ hasn't appealed in their similar losses (I've a friend at Perkins Coie, who also won), so things look good for us.
#WilmerHale #PerkinsCoie #unconstitutional #executive #order #injunction #law #firm #fight #win #unlike #SkaddenArps or #PaulWeiss #diversity #equity & #inclusion #DEI #DOJ #PamBondi https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/wilmerhale-wins-in-court-as-judge-throws-out-executive-order -
#law #weiss #jenner #WilmerHale #lawfirms
"While the firms that rejected a deal and fought back have now notched a string of decisive wins in court, others that sought to appease Mr. #Trump have seen high-profile resignations and internal discord. Last week, four of Paul Weiss’s best-known partners resigned to start their own venture, after others, including the firm’s top pro bono leader, left shortly after the order."
-
Kevin Breuninger’s article reveals that Judge Richard Leon has definitively deemed President Trump's executive order against WilmerHale unconstitutional. Leon's 73-page ruling highlights the importance of an independent judiciary, scorches the administration's claims as "absurd," and warns against undermining constitutional principles. This decision reflects a troubling pattern of the former president's attacks on opposing legal entities. For the full story, click here: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/27/trump-leon-wilmerhale-mueller.html
#DonaldTrump #WilmerHale #JudgeRichardLeon #ExecutiveOrder #ConstitutionalLaw #JudicialIndependence -
Updates on #LawFirms targeted by #Trump:
#WilmerHale [employed Robert Mueller] — Judge Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, set a 4:30 PM hearing
#JennerBlock [employed Andrew Weissmann] — Judge Bates, another a George W. Bush appointee, set a 5:45PM hearing
Last Fri, #PerkinsCoie [worked for Hillary Clinton] got a TRO while the case moves forward.
#PaulWeiss, cut a deal w/Trump last month, promising $40M in pro bono legal services & to hire an outside consultant to review employment practices.
-
#Trump Targets #WilmerHale, Citing #LawFirm’s Connection to #RobertMueller
#Mueller, who worked at WilmerHale before retiring in 2021, had investigated the Trump campaign’s ties to #Russia during Trump’s first term.
#law #RevengePolitics #authoritarianism #autocracy #tyranny #MafiaState #TheRealWeaponizationOfGovernment
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/27/us/politics/trump-wilmerhale-law-firm-mueller.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=p&pvid=EB968B02-59E6-44C9-B0A7-4057762D4A42 -
OpenAI CEO Altman wasn’t fired because of scary new tech, just internal politics - Enlarge / OpenAI CEO Sam Altman speaks during the OpenAI DevDay event o... - https://arstechnica.com/?p=2009160 #largelanguagemodels #machinelearning #gregbrockman #helentoner #wilmerhale #samaltman #aiethics #aisafety #chatgpt #chatgtp #biz #openai #gpt-4 #ai