Judge John Bates, appointed by George W. Bush, is overseeing the litigation filed by Jenner & Block against the Trump administration challenging the Executive Order targeting the firm. Bates quickly issued a temporary restraining order, barring the enforcement of the most pernicious provisions of the EO. And Jenner followed up with a motion for summary judgment.
Now that’s been granted with Judge Bates writing the EO is “null and void.”
“More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the [executive order] sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy,” Bates wrote. “This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.”
Bates is now the second federal judge to rule a Biglaw EO unconstitutional. And reading his decision (available below) makes it clear there were many, many reasons that’s true:
Jenner raises many more claims of unconstitutionality. These present interesting, difficult, and potentially meritorious questions about the scope of presidential power and more. What has been said here of the First Amendment (and in passing of the Fifth and Sixth), however, is sufficient to declare Executive Order 14246 unlawful and enjoin its operation, eliminating the need to explore those other questions. So the Court need not break new ground.
It’s a good read for those that need a reminder that some people really do care about the rule of law.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
