1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’…

Law Firms

‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’ Judges consider injunction bids by firms targeted in Trump orders

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 10:57 am CDT

Two federal judges sharply questioned a government lawyer Wednesday as they considered bids by Perkins Coie and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to permanently enjoin executive orders that target them and their clients.

“Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era, the Red Scare era?” asked U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., in the Perkins Coie case. Howell was questioning Department of Justice lawyer Richard Lawson, according to Law360.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Law360, include the New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Law.com (here and here).

Lawson argued for the government in the cases before Howell and U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, both of whom are located in the District of Columbia.

Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are among four law firms that filed lawsuits to challenge the executive orders that typically seek the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances; restrict their access to government buildings; and call for termination of government contracts for which the firms were hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Targeted firms have represented clients and worked on causes opposed by President Donald Trump.

Howell asked the “throwback” question after noting a declaration from a former Department of Defense official who oversaw security clearances. He said a blanket suspension of clearances, as called for in the executive orders, “harkens back to the repudiated and discredited programs,” including the Red Scare.

Arguing for Perkins Coie, Dane H. Butswinkas, a partner at Williams & Connolly, said Trump’s actions stem from “the playbook of authoritarianism,” according to Bloomberg Law.

“This is exactly the kind of conduct the Constitution forbids,” Butswinkas said.

Butswinkas said the executive orders targeted lawyers who are no longer with the firms, according to Law.com.

“It sounds more like national insecurity than national security,” he said.

In the hearing before Leon, Lawson said the orders are a valid exercise of executive function rather than punishments for First Amendment activities.

Leon questioned that assertion, Law360 reports.

“It’s pretty clear it’s retaliation,” Leon said, “at least to this court.”

Arguing for WilmerHale, Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy said the executive orders “are a direct and lethal threat to an independent bar,” according to Law360.

“The signal it sends to the whole bar is, ‘Watch out,’” Clement said.

Nine firms have reached deals with Trump to avoid executive orders. The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

Above the Law has created a list of firm actions in response to the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.”

See also:

Revoking security clearances includes due process, which is not being followed, says whistleblower lawyer

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

A federal judge appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump is not budging in his demand that the government “facilitate” a deported Venezuelan man’s return to the United States.

In the case, Daniel Lozano-Camargo, 20, was “wrongfully” deported to El Salvador in violation of a legal settlement agreement that was meant to keep him in the country while his pending asylum claim was litigated with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Notably, the plaintiff has filed his case under the pseudonym “Cristian,” but Politico reported his full identity on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the court itself, in line with a prior order binding the parties, is continuing to use the pseudonym.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, cited contract law principles in a 19-page opinion directing the government to try and get Lozano-Camargo back stateside “so that he can receive the process he was entitled to under the parties’ binding Settlement Agreement.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

On Monday, the government filed sealed arguments in an attempt to convince the judge to vacate her order. Along with those mysterious legal arguments, the government publicly filed a heavily redacted “Indicative Asylum Decision.”

The government’s public formal document explains why the Trump administration believes Lozano-Camargo’s underlying asylum claim will fail.

During a hearing on Tuesday, however, the judge said the asylum case is too far removed from the current legal dispute to be dispositive.

“I don’t think that this is a case about whether or not Cristian is going to eventually get asylum,” Gallagher said, according to a courtroom report by Politico. “Whether he ultimately receives asylum is not the issue. The issue is, and has always been, one of process.”

The issue, rather, is a 2024 settlement that limits how people who came to the country as unaccompanied minors can be deported, according to the judge. In Lozano-Camargo’s case, because he came to the U.S. when he was 17, that court-approved agreement means the government must wait until his asylum claim is extinguished.

“It is an axiomatic principle of contract law that when a defendant breaches a contract, that defendant must restore the situation that existed before the breach,” Gallagher wrote. “In the case of Cristian, this requires putting him in the position ‘to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’ In other words, under contract law principles, Cristian, and any other Class Member who has been removed in violation of the Settlement Agreement, must be returned to the United States to await adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS.”

An accompanying April 23 order explains, in relevant part:

Defendants are hereby ORDERED to facilitate Class Member Cristian’s return to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Facilitation includes, but is not limited to, a good faith request by Defendants to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. SCOTUSblog will expand offerings, keep ‘unbiased…

U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog will expand offerings, keep ‘unbiased coverage’ after acquisition by Dispatch Media

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 11:52 am CDT

Dispatch Media Inc. has acquired SCOTUSblog, the website with in-depth and breaking news coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court that was founded by Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, a husband-and-wife legal team.

The New York Times described Dispatch Media as “a right-of-center political news and commentary startup” founded by two conservative journalists.

Law360 and Above the Law also covered the sale.

Dispatch Media “plans to maintain SCOTUSblog as our users have come to enjoy it and will continue to offer its existing content to all readers at no cost,” according to a SCOTUSblog announcement on the sale. “The site will also continue to remain a source of unbiased coverage of the Supreme Court.”

The announcement said SCOTUSblog “scaled back our coverage in recent years” because of rising costs, but “through our partnership with the Dispatch, we will be able to restore SCOTUSblog’s publishing capabilities, including expanded analysis for all merits cases and oral arguments.”

Dispatch Media will also bring back “beloved features” to SCOTUSblog, such as the Stat Pack, according to the announcement.

Howe continues her work at SCOTUSblog as her husband, a high-stakes poker player, faces a federal indictment accusing him of evading taxes and making false statements to mortgage lenders. Goldstein won’t be part of SCOTUSblog, according to Michael Rothman, the president of the Dispatch, who spoke with the New York Times.

As part of the acquisition, the Dispatch “will invest in Amy, her team and additional staff to ensure that SCOTUSblog remains the go-to authority on the Supreme Court,” said Steve Hayes, the CEO and editor of the Dispatch, in an announcement.

Dispatch Media will also “announce additional talent” in the coming weeks, “including a partnership with Original Jurisdiction founder and legal commentator David Lat,” Hayes said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

A 28-year-old man in Missouri has been arrested for allegedly killing a 35-year-old pregnant woman and the child she was carrying, as five kids — all of whom were under the age of 10 — watched in horror.

Vanier J. Jones was taken into custody last week and charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the slayings of 35-year-old Christina Lynn Rentchler and her unborn child, court records reviewed by Law&Crime show.

Jones is also facing charges of armed criminal action, first-degree assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and unlawful possession of a handgun.

According to a probable cause affidavit obtained by Law&Crime, officers with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department on April 23, 2025, responded to a call regarding a shooting at a residence located in the 4100 block of Farlin Avenue. Upon arriving at the address, first responders said they quickly located the victim, later identified as Rentchler, who appeared to be suffering from multiple gunshot wounds, including a single shot “in the back of the head.”

A subsequent autopsy performed by the county medical examiner concluded that the victim was in the second trimester of her pregnancy at the time of her death. The exam further concluded that Rentchler’s death was the direct cause of the death of her unborn baby.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The affidavit also included a harrowing detail about the fatal shooting and who was forced to witness the alleged crime take place.

“In the house during the murder were five juveniles Victim 4, Victim 5, Victim 6, Victim 7 and Victim 8,” the affidavit states. “The juveniles’ ages ranged from ages of 2 to 10 years old. Some of these juveniles were [Rentchler’s] children.”

Following the shooting, investigators interviewed the eldest child at the hospital, who they said identified Jones as the shooter, adding that he had recently begun staying at the house with her and her family. The child also provided a brief description of what led to Rentchler’s tragic murder and how the child avoided suffering the same fate.

“She stated the Defendant had gotten angry and shot [Rentchler],” according to the document. “She stated that she then played dead, and heard the Defendant ask Victim 1’s children where their mother was prior to the Defendant killing Victim 1.”

After being taken into custody, Jones allegedly told police that he had nothing to do with Rentchler’s murder, claiming he was with an individual identified in the document as “Witness 1.” However, when police spoke to the witness in a taped interview, they stated that “not only was Witness 1 not with the Defendant when the homicide occurred, but that the Defendant admitted to Witness 1 that he had just killed a woman.”

Further investigation revealed that Jones had previously been convicted of multiple prior felonies and had “absconded from his federal supervised release at the time of the homicide.”