Judge Beryl Howell permanently struck down President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie law firm, deeming it unconstitutional. The order, violating the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, was deemed an illegitimate use of presidential power and constituted retaliatory action against the firm for its protected speech. The ruling permanently prevents the executive order’s enforcement and establishes a precedent against such actions targeting lawyers based on their clients or viewpoints. The judge found the order unconstitutionally vague, lacked due process, and interfered with a client’s right to counsel.
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
Judge Theodore Chuang ruled Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) dismantling of USAID was likely unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers by contravening congressional authority. The order prevents further terminations, record destruction, and unauthorized actions regarding USAID, mandating the restoration of employee access to systems and potential headquarters reoccupation. While some plaintiff requests were denied due to USAID’s apparent complicity, the judge found DOGE’s actions harmed the public interest by undermining Congress’s authority. Musk responded by sharing a critical post, suggesting the ruling was politically motivated.
Read More
The Fukuoka High Court’s ruling declared Japan’s prohibition on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, citing violations of Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution, which guarantee the pursuit of happiness and equality under the law, respectively. This marks the third high court to reach this conclusion, strengthening the momentum for legislative change. While the court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ damage claims, the decision significantly advances the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. The ruling contrasts with previous lower court decisions, some of which deemed the law to be in a “state of unconstitutionality,” highlighting the ongoing legal battle for marriage equality in Japan.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker