Judge Beryl Howell issued a 102-page ruling declaring President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie unconstitutional. The order, which sought to penalize the firm for representing Hillary Clinton, included actions such as stripping security clearances and terminating contracts. Howell deemed the actions retaliatory, violating the First Amendment and potentially undermining the independence of the legal profession. The judge’s decision affirms the importance of independent legal counsel and free speech, while the White House and Justice Department have yet to comment.
Read More
Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked Donald Trump’s unconstitutional executive order targeting Perkins Coie, citing violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The order, deemed retaliatory for Perkins Coie’s work with the Hillary Clinton campaign, unlawfully restricted the firm’s access to federal buildings and imposed burdensome disclosure requirements on government contractors. Howell’s decision, a significant victory for Perkins Coie, criticized the administration’s actions as viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional retaliation. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
Read More
A federal judge has blocked President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie, deeming it an unconstitutional infringement on clients’ right to counsel and the firm’s due process rights. The order, unprecedented in its attempt to punish a law firm for representing clients with opposing views, directed agencies to take actions including contract reviews, building access restrictions, and security clearance revocations. Judge Howell’s decision follows similar temporary restraining orders for other firms, and stands in contrast to deals struck by nine other law firms to avoid similar executive actions. The judge characterized the order as an attack on fundamental judicial principles, highlighting the firm’s penalization for representing clients and expressing views at odds with the President.
Read More
President Trump signed an executive order eliminating federal funding for PBS and NPR, citing alleged media bias. This action directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cease all federal funding and actively pursue the elimination of indirect public financing for the organizations. The White House claims the broadcasters use taxpayer money to disseminate partisan propaganda. This is part of a broader pattern by the Trump administration to exert control over institutions deemed politically objectionable through funding cuts and personnel changes.
Read More
During a cabinet meeting, Attorney General Pam Bondi lavishly praised President Trump, boasting about signing death warrants in accordance with his executive order reinstating the federal death penalty. This order, issued in January 2025, instructed the Attorney General to pursue capital punishment for various severe crimes, including those committed by undocumented immigrants. Bondi highlighted the administration’s record number of lawsuits stemming from executive orders while emphasizing her commitment to executing Trump’s agenda to combat violent crime. Her first death warrant was issued for Luigi Mangione, charged with the murder of a CEO.
Read More
This executive order establishes legal protection for law enforcement and prioritizes holding accountable state and local officials who impede police duties. The order reflects a pattern of the executive threatening the use of military force against American citizens, previously suggesting deployment of the National Guard against political opponents. These actions build upon earlier pronouncements of using force against protestors. The executive’s rhetoric demonstrates a willingness to utilize the military against domestic political dissent.
Read More
In a single day, three federal judges blocked key portions of President Trump’s agenda. Judge Orrick blocked funding restrictions targeting “sanctuary cities,” deeming them unconstitutional coercion. Judge McCafferty halted the withholding of funds from schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, citing First Amendment violations. Finally, Judge Kollar-Kotelly blocked elements of an executive order altering election administration, asserting that the President overstepped his authority. These rulings represent the latest setbacks in a series of legal challenges against the Trump administration’s actions.
Read More
The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, focusing on injunctions against his executive order. This order, based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen mothers. Several lower courts swiftly issued nationwide injunctions against the order, which the administration unsuccessfully attempted to overturn. The Court must decisively reject the administration’s arguments to uphold birthright citizenship and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider former President Trump’s attempt to ban birthright citizenship via executive order is deeply troubling. The very notion that such a fundamental right, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, could be overturned through an executive action, rather than the constitutionally mandated process of amendment, is alarming. This isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a direct challenge to the bedrock principles of American citizenship.
The sheer audacity of attempting to circumvent the Constitution through an executive order is astounding. The established legal framework for altering constitutional rights is clear and deliberate, yet this attempt seeks to bypass it entirely.… Continue reading
This executive order mandates a “zero-based regulating” approach to energy production regulations, aiming to stimulate innovation and economic growth. Specific agencies are directed to incorporate sunset provisions into existing and new regulations, requiring periodic review and potential rescission by a certain date unless extended. This process will subject regulations to public comment on costs and benefits, ensuring their continued relevance. The order excludes regulatory permitting regimes and clarifies that regulatory expirations will not count towards existing deregulation requirements.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood