aim Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Trump takes aim at Robert Mueller-linked law firm with EO

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:04:39 +0000

Left: President Donald Trump speaks after signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Feb. 3, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci). Right: Former special counsel Robert Mueller appears before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019 (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik).

Donald Trump’s attack on perceived enemies continues apace, with the 45th and 47th president issuing yet another executive order targeting a law firm — this time, railing against a firm linked to former special counsel Robert Mueller, who led the investigation into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election.

The chief executive issued an order on Friday titled “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss,” labeling the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP as a national security threat. Much of the language echoes that of an executive order issued earlier this month aimed at Hillary Clinton-linked law firm Perkins Coie, as well as a February order focused on the firm Covington & Burling, linked to former special prosecutor Jack Smith.

The president raised a familiar list of grievances relating to lawsuits sparked by the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and his criminal prosecution in Manhattan.

From the order:

In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General.

In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.

Trump also accuses the firm — and others — of racial discrimination and takes the opportunity to tout his administration’s efforts to end diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

“Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around ‘targets’ based on race and sex,” the order says, without providing support for this claim. The order adds: “Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.”

As with prior memos, Trump ordered various agency heads to “immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances” held by individuals at the firm. He also ordered the Office of Management and Budget to “identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Paul Weiss” — and that such provisions be ceased “expeditiously.”

The order directs government agencies to require contractors to “disclose any business they do with Paul Weiss” and take steps to terminate those contracts.

Agency heads have also been ordered to “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); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate.”

Trump ordered an assessment of Paul Weiss contracts with the government within 30 days. He also ordered agency heads to limit “official access from Federal Government buildings” to employees of the firm “when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States.”

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.

Source link

The post Trump takes aim at Robert Mueller-linked law firm with EO appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

‘The Licensing Racket’ takes aim at professional licensing system in America

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 07:03:07 +0000

The Modern Law Library

‘The Licensing Racket’ takes aim at professional licensing system in America

By Lee Rawles

February 19, 2025, 9:02 am CST

Should you need a license for that? For law professor and antitrust expert Rebecca Haw Allensworth, there are huge problems with professional licensing in America—and her solutions might not make anyone completely happy.

In her new book, The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, & Why It Goes Wrong, Allensworth takes a deep dive into the history and function of licensing in the United States. While licensing boards are put forth as a way to protect consumers, Allensworth says in practice, their decisions can be arbitrary, and their disciplinary functions can be flawed.

In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Allensworth and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles chat about a range of professions that currently require licenses, from hairdressing to law and medicine. While disciplinary procedures for lawyers are not open to the public, she was able to attend a number of proceedings for health care workers accused of wrongdoing, and what she found sometimes shocked her—and even shocked some of the people responsible for making those disciplinary decisions. She shares some of those stories in the episode.

The Licensing Racket argues that licensing should be done away with for many professions. For those that remain, however, Allensworth thinks that much more must be done by government agencies, rather than allowing professions to self-police themselves through volunteers and licensing boards.

Want to listen on the go? The Modern Law Library is available on several podcast listening services. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
Apple | Spotify | Google Play

In This Podcast:

Rebecca Haw Allensworth. (Photo by Chad Driver)

" style="vertical-align:text-top;"/>

Rebecca Haw Allensworth. (Photo by Chad Driver)

Rebecca Haw Allensworth studies antitrust and professional licensing. Her work on antitrust focuses on how to adapt competition policy to address competition problems posed by tech platforms, and her research on professional licensing explores how lawmakers should balance the need for expertise in regulating the professions with the problems that can arise from self-regulation. She is the author of The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, & Why It Goes Wrong (Harvard University Press, February 2025), a deep dive into the pathologies of professional licensing in America. More about the book and her research have recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Freakanomics Radio and the Atlantic. Her work has also been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and has received the 13th annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award for Antitrust Scholarship.

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

Source link

The post ‘The Licensing Racket’ takes aim at professional licensing system in America appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Transgender service members aim to nix Trump’s military ban

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 05 Feb 2025 00:53:22 +0000

FILE – President Donald Trump throws pens used to sign executive orders to the crowd during an indoor Presidential Inauguration parade event in Washington, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025 (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File).

A group of named plaintiffs, in what appears to be the first lawsuit of its kind, is suing the Trump administration to put a quick stop to the anti-transgender military service ban.

On Jan. 27, President Donald Trump signed an executive order described as an effort to “ensure the readiness and effectiveness” of the U.S. armed forces – aimed at thinning the military’s ranks of individuals who identify as a gender different than their assigned sex at birth. Similar to an earlier anti-transgender executive order, the military focused policy excoriates “radical gender ideology.”

Trump also directly rescinded a previous executive order signed in January 2021 allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military.

On Jan. 28, lead plaintiff Nicolas Talbott and seven others filed their complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After a brief procedural hiccup, the case was assigned to Joe Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes.

On Monday, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction – a form of relief that could very well stop the transgender ban from going into effect pending the outcome of the broader case. The judge scheduled a hearing to hash out that motion on Feb. 12.

On Tuesday, aiming for somewhat quicker action, the plaintiffs filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order.

“Plaintiffs are six transgender service members and two transgender individuals actively pursuing enlistment,” the motion reads. “The ban will inflict irreparable injuries on Plaintiffs and other prospective and current transgender service members. They will be discharged or barred from service, lose their means of supporting themselves and their families, and stripped of the honor, status, and benefits associated with uniformed service to their country.”

The plaintiffs say the swift actions of the U.S. Department of Defense have necessitated their latest, emergency filing.

“[A] transgender service member is already being administratively separated,” the motion goes on. “Even after Plaintiffs filed their complaint and after the Court informed counsel for the parties that it expected expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction application, this service member was presented with an ultimatum: that she must be classified and treated as a man—i.e., not be transgender—or be separated.”

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Practical reality’: Trump admin dismisses concerns about violence against transgender women in men’s prisons because ‘vast majority’ are already in all-male lockups

In other words, the Trump administration is moving much faster than the court system in order to effectuate preferred policy goals.

The filing relays the story of Miriam Perelson, who is not a party to the current action, and how her unit is dealing with her identifying as a transgender woman. The plaintiffs cast the issue – and the concomitant legal battle – about something immutable.

From the motion, at length:

Requiring Miriam, a transgender woman, to serve as a man is the same as saying she cannot serve at all, since it requires her to stop being transgender, which she cannot do because she is transgender. When her commanding officer asked her to sign a statement affirming that she would agree not to be transgender, she did not sign because she is transgender. When she informed her officer that she could not sign the document, she was informed she would be administratively separated.

The preliminary injunction proceedings, the plaintiffs argue in no uncertain terms, are simply not happening fast enough.

“Urgent relief is required to prevent Plaintiffs and other service members from being deprived of their careers and suffering dehumanizing treatment based solely on their transgender status while the Court considers the Application for Preliminary Injunction,” the motion for the restraining order goes on.

To hear the plaintiffs tell it, the Trump administration’s policy is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

“The President’s categorical exclusion of transgender people lacks any rational basis whatsoever,” the motion argues. “By singling out transgender people for differential treatment, the President’s Order creates a sex-based classification that is subject to, and fails, intermediate equal protection scrutiny.”

The executive order is constitutionally impermissible because it “targets transgender status itself,” according to the plaintiffs, and goes on to discriminate in multiple separate ways.

First, the plaintiffs claim an “explicit classification on the basis of transgender status is inherently a sex-based classification,” which is strongly disfavored by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the past, the nation’s high court has recognized, and the plaintiffs note: “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

The plaintiffs, citing from the same ruling, go on to explain that people cannot be penalized for sex-based traits or actions.

“[T]he Order also discriminates based on sex by requiring that all service members conform to the sex stereotypes associated with their birth sex,” the motion continues. “By prohibiting military service by transgender individuals because they do not conform to sex stereotypes, the Order impermissibly discriminates based on sex.”

On Tuesday afternoon, the court held a preliminary hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order. The proceeding ended with no conclusion. The judge ordered the parties to produce a joint status report by late Wednesday afternoon. A second hearing on the emergency application is currently slated for Friday.

Source link

The post Transgender service members aim to nix Trump’s military ban appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.