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.

The Federal Circuit, located in Washington, D.C., has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over a variety of subject areas, as well as a statutory requirement to provide citizens with reasonable opportunities to appear before the court. This creates a unique opportunity to hold oral arguments outside of D.C., including most recently in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Boston later this fall.

“The court believes that by engaging with the public through this program it can promote transparency and increase public trust and confidence in the Federal Circuit and the Judiciary,” Moore said.

Federal courts of appeals across the country regularly conduct special sittings at law schools to provide law students with real-life exposure to a sitting panel of judges, lawyers presenting oral arguments, and the briefing in real cases. A question-and-answer session often follows oral arguments as law students are able to gain valuable insights into career paths in the justice system.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t…

Judiciary

Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 11:36 am CDT

A judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade did not violate ethics rules by refusing to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University, according to the judicial council of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago.

In an April 8 decision, the council dismissed the complaint against Judge Stephen A. Vaden, one of 13 federal judges who participated in the boycott and explained why in a letter to the school.

Law360, Reuters and the Volokh Conspiracy have coverage.

President Donald Trump has nominated Vaden to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Reuters reports. A U.S. Senate panel had a hearing on his nomination Tuesday.

The judges had refused to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University or Columbia Law School because of the university’s handling of disruptions caused by pro-Palestinian protesters. Columbia has become “an incubator of bigotry,” the judges said in their letter to Columbia, and the judges have lost confidence in the institution.

Vaden’s boycott and his signature on the letter do not harm the integrity of the judicial office, do not harm public confidence in the judiciary, and do not cast doubt on his impartiality, the judicial council said.

“A judge may refuse to hire law clerks from a law school or university that has, in the judge’s view, failed to foster important aspects of higher education, like civility in discourse, respect for freedom of speech and viewpoint nondiscrimination,” the opinion said.

The chief judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade had transferred the ethics complaint against Vaden to the 7th Circuit’s judicial council for review. The person who filed the ethics complaint is in prison for his role in firebombing and vandalizing Jewish synagogues.

Vaden was represented by the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit conservative legal organization, and Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly.

Judicial councils have also tossed ethics complaints against 11 of the other 12 boycotting judges, including, apparently, two federal appeals judges: Judge James C. Ho of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans and, according to Reuters, Judge Elizabeth L. Branch of the 11th Circuit at Atlanta.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge’s warning about potential violence…

Judiciary

Federal judge’s warning about potential violence after Trump’s comments was not ethics violation, 3rd Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 3:29 pm CDT

A federal judge didn’t violate ethics rules when he commented about the potential for violence when “people in positions of authority” make negative comments about a judge or the judge’s family members, according to a federal appellate judicial council.

Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton of Washington, D.C., didn’t comment on the merits of a pending matter and did not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, said Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia. Chagares wrote the opinion for the 3rd Circuit’s judicial council that dismissed two ethics complaints against Walton.

Reuters and Law360 have coverage.

Chagares’ Jan. 31 opinion, which was released last week, did not identify Walton as the judge in question. But a Walton representative confirmed to Law360 and Reuters that he was the subject of the opinion.

Walton had commented on CNN on March 28, 2024, in response to a question about then-candidate Donald Trump’s social media attacks against New York Judge Juan Merchan, according to prior coverage by Reuters. Merchan was presiding in a case accusing Trump of falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump was convicted in May 2024.

Trump had criticized Merchan as a “radical left judge” and a Trump hater at “the highest level” in a March 22, 2024, post on Truth Social, his social media platform, according to another prior story by Reuters. Trump also labeled Merchan’s daughter a “rabid Trump hater” before Walton appeared on CNN.

Reuters published this comment by Walton: “I think it’s very important that people in positions of authority be very circumspect in reference to the things that they say, so that they’re not causing others to act on what they say and maybe cause injury or death to someone as a result of that.”

Law360 referred to additional comments from Walton’s interview.

“I can’t get into someone’s mind to say whether they appreciate the impact that they’re doing, but I would think that he’s—any reasonable thinking person would appreciate that when they say things, they can sometimes resonate with others,” Walton said. “And I think that’s particularly true when you have somebody who has status in our society, and they make certain statements that can cause people to act on those statements, even if they don’t necessarily intend for someone to do so.”

None of Walton’s remarks concerned the merits of Trump’s case, and they do not constitute partisan political activity, Chagares said.

“Rather, [Walton] spoke about the experience of receiving threats, reflected on the tragedy of colleagues whose family members had been killed, and encouraged circumspection with respect to public remarks that can have unintended consequences,” Chagares said. Walton “also emphasized the importance of the independence of judicial officers in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that laws are applied equally to all who appear before a judge.”

Chagares did not identify who filed the complaints. But conservative activist Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, a conservative group, has said he filed one of them.

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

A federal appeals court will leave in place an earlier ruling allowing the president to terminate the head of a board that reviews firings of federal employees after the Justice Department argued that staying its order would effectively disenfranchise those who voted for President Donald Trump.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia had previously rejected a request to stay its decision allowing President Trump to fire Cathy A. Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Mirroring the appellate panel’s Friday tally, the judges voted 2-1 in rejecting a request to stay its Friday decision, which granted a stay of a lower court’s order that required Harris be returned to her role on the board.

U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, on Friday both voted in favor of staying the district court’s ruling, while U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, a Barack Obama appointee, dissented. Harris immediately requested a stay of the appeals court’s order pending her request that the case be presented to the court “en banc,” meaning all of the judges on the circuit.

Walker and Henderson again voted to reject Harris’ request for a stay of the stay while Millett said she would grant the request.

Harris, a Democrat who was nominated to the MSPB by President Joe Biden, was supposed to serve until her term expired in 2028 before she received notice last month that she was “terminated, effective immediately.” Without Harris, the board lacks a quorum, which could hamper its ability to function as the Trump administration continues its sprawling efforts to gut the federal workforce.

“As a panel of this Court explained in Dellinger v. Bessent — when staying an order reinstating another principal executive officer whom the President removed — and as Judge Henderson reiterated in this case, ‘it is impossible to unwind the days during which a President is directed to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed,”” the DOJ’s 12-page filing opposing both Harris’ second stay request and her request for a rehearing en banc states. “Judge Walker similarly recognized that ‘[t]he forcible reinstatement of a presidentially removed principal officer disenfranchises voters by hampering the President’s ability to govern.’”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial…

Criminal Justice

Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial in prosecution for fatally shooting wife, defense lawyer says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 9:09 am CDT

Jurors in Los Angeles were unable to agree on a verdict in the case of a California judge who texted court personnel after fatally shooting his wife, saying he won’t be at work the next day because “I just lost it. I just shot my wife.”

A mistrial was declared Monday after jurors were unable to reach a verdict on a second-degree murder charge against Judge Jeffrey Ferguson of the Orange County Superior Court in California, report Law360, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press.

Eleven out of 12 jurors had voted for conviction. They had deliberated for eight days.

Ferguson’s lawyer had argued that Ferguson accidentally pulled the trigger while trying to place his gun onto the coffee table. He had killed his wife, Sheryl, in August 2023 while watching the AMC TV show Breaking Bad at their home and arguing about finances.

At the time, Ferguson was 72 years old, and he had fumbled the gun because of shooting pain from a shoulder injury, causing the gun to fire, his lawyer argued. Ferguson’s blood alcohol level was about twice the legal limit for drivers when the shooting happened, a prosecution expert said.

An adult son who was in the home had testified that he had stepped outside as his parents argued and heard his mother say words to the effect, “Why don’t you point a real gun at me?” The son said he turned around and saw his father fire the gun that he kept in an ankle holster.

Ferguson had testified that his wife instead said, “Why don’t you put the real gun away from me?”

Ferguson’s lawyer, Cameron Talley, told reporters after the mistrial was declared that neither Ferguson’s children nor his slain wife’s family members wanted him prosecuted, according to Law360.

“At the end of the day, Judge Ferguson’s life remains in ruins: He’s a broken, 74-year-old man who lost his wife and has health problems,” Talley said.

Talley said he hoped that he could reach a resolution to the case in future discussions with prosecutors.

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said his office is “absolutely prepared to retry this case,” according to Law360.

Spitzer also said his office would be reviewing Ferguson’s cases because he admitted during trial testimony that he was sometimes under the influence of alcohol on the bench.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Job protections for administrative law judges…

Administrative Law

Job protections for administrative law judges are unconstitutional, DOJ concludes

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 24, 2025, 2:17 pm CST

The U.S. Department of Justice has concluded that “multiple layers of removal restrictions” for administrative law judges are unconstitutional.

The decision was revealed in a Feb. 20 press release from the DOJ, a Feb. 20 letter to Republican U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and a Feb. 11 court filing, report Law360, Reuters and the New York Times.

The administrative law judges are protected by two laws, the letter says. One says administrative law judges can be removed “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board.” Another says board members may be removed by a president “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

The laws violate a president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution by restricting their “ability to remove principal executive officers, who are in turn restricted in their ability to remove inferior executive officers,” the letter says.

Administrative law judges decide disputes in administrative hearings for executive branch agencies that include the Social Security Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, according to Law360 and the New York Times.

The New York Times called the decision “the latest step in the administration’s unfolding assault on the basic structure of the federal government and on Congress’ power to insulate various types of executive branch officials in sensitive positions from political interference from the White House.”

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Averting immediate showdown, chief justice…

U.S. Supreme Court

Averting immediate showdown, chief justice pauses judge’s deadline for US to restore foreign-aid funds

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2025, 10:36 am CST

The U.S. government doesn’t have to comply with a federal judge’s Wednesday night deadline to restore foreign-aid funds after Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay in the matter.

Roberts issued the temporary stay late Wednesday in two consolidated lawsuits challenging a 90-day freeze in funding for foreign assistance programs. A plaintiff in one of the suits is the ABA, which had “tens of millions of dollars” in federal funding frozen for foreign rule of law and human rights programs, its suit said.

The Washington Post, Reuters, NBC News, Law.com, SCOTUSblog and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage.

Plaintiffs in the suit consolidated with the ABA’s alleged Feb. 19 that government defendants showed “brazen defiance” of a Feb. 13 temporary restraining order requiring restoration of funding.

U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia issued the Feb. 13 TRO. On Feb. 25, Ali issued a bench ruling setting the deadline at 11:59 p.m. Feb. 26 for compliance with his order requiring payment on completed contracts. The U.S. government immediately appealed.

Amir’s order appears to contemplate the immediate outlay of nearly $2 billion, according to the stay request filed with the Supreme Court by Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris.

The government is committed to paying legitimate claims for work, and it is “undertaking significant efforts” toward that end, Harris said.

“What the government cannot do,” Harris wrote, “is pay arbitrarily determined demands on an arbitrary timeline of the district court’s choosing or according to extra-contractual rules that the court has devised. That mandate creates an untenable payment plan at odds with the president’s obligations under Article II to protect the integrity of the federal fisc and make appropriate judgments about foreign aid.”

The stay request argued that the suits amount to claims for breach of contract that should be heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The cases are U.S. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Trump v. Global Health Council.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 20 immigration judges fired, despite backlogs;…

Immigration Law

20 immigration judges fired, despite backlogs; one labels dismissal ‘political pink slip’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 18, 2025, 1:56 pm CST

Immigration judges have not been spared from firings in the Trump administration, despite a backlog of 3.7 million cases in their courts at the end of last year.

Twenty immigration judges have been fired, including 18 let go Friday, a union official told the New York Times, Bloomberg Law and the Associated Press, which was first to report the news.

The firings are “inexplicable,” and “it makes no sense at all,” said Matthew Biggs, the official, in an interview with the New York Times. Biggs is the president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers.

Biggs said the firings are contrary to President Donald Trump’s campaign promises to crack down on illegal immigration. Immigration judges, who are administrative law judges, preside over asylum claims and deportation cases.

Among those who were fired Friday, 13 were recently hired and had not yet been sworn in. Five were assistant chief immigration judges. Another two were fired in the past week.

One of the fired judges was Judge Kerry E. Doyle, who was formerly the deputy general counsel for immigration for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“Unfortunately, I was unable to avoid the political pink slip,” Doyle wrote on LinkedIn.

The fired judges included former prosecutors and military veterans, Doyle told Bloomberg Law.

See also:

DOJ says it will prosecute local officials over immigration enforcement

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DC church controls Proud Boys trademark as…

Trademark Law

DC church controls Proud Boys trademark as result of judge’s decision

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 4, 2025, 1:59 pm CST

A Washington, D.C., judge has transferred interest in a trademark owned by Proud Boys International, a far-right group, to a church that its members vandalized in December 2020.

The judge’s injunction also banned Proud Boys International from selling or licensing its trademark without court approval or the consent of the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, which had sued over the attack.

Judge Tanya M. Jones Bosier of the District of Columbia Superior Court entered the injunction Feb. 3 after the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., sued to enforce a $2.8 million default judgment against the Proud Boys.

The New York Times, the Independent, the Guardian and the Hill are among the publications with coverage.

Bosier’s ruling “effectively means that Proud Boys chapters across the country can no longer legally use their own name or the group’s traditional symbols without the permission of the church,” the New York Times reports. “The ruling also clears the way for the church to try to seize any money that the Proud Boys might make by selling merchandise, like hats or T-shirts emblazoned with their name or with any of their familiar logos, including a black and yellow laurel wreath.”

The Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., had obtained the default judgment in a June 2023 decision by Judge Neal E. Kravitz of the District of Columbia Superior Court. He ruled after the church alleged that the Proud Boys trespassed on church property during a march and destroyed its large Black Lives Matter sign.

The church was represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

One of the defendants in the lawsuits was Enrique Tarrio, a former Proud Boys leader who had been sentenced to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other crimes for helping to plan the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. Tarrio was not at the Capitol during the attack, however, because he was banned from the city after he was arrested on vandalism charges, the New York Times explains.

Last month, Tarrio received a full pardon of his Capitol attack convictions from President Donald Trump.

Tarrio commented on the trademark injunction in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. He accused the church of engaging “in a campaign of harassment and falsehoods.” The judge’s conduct, he said, “necessitates impeachment and investigation.”

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