In a significant legal development, Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly criticized a federal judge’s decision to partially halt the enforcement of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that targeted the Jenner & Block law firm. In a memo prepared for governmental agencies, Bondi urged them to disregard what she termed as a blatant overreach of judicial authority while hinting that, despite the court’s ruling, agencies retain the discretion to decide with whom they wish to collaborate.
The memorandum, which was filed alongside court documents on Tuesday, was issued jointly by Bondi and Russell Vought, who heads the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This memo was necessary as a part of Judge John Bates’ temporary restraining order stemming from a lawsuit initiated by Jenner & Block against the government. Bates’ order mandated that the executive branch suspend the enforcement of certain aspects of Trump’s executive order, a directive Bondi fervently opposed in her memo.
The memo’s text is noteworthy for its aggressive tone. It opens with a declaration that the interference from an “unelected district court” represents an unwarranted intrusion into the executive branch’s authority and free speech rights. The authors argue that lower court judges do not possess the authority to impose such restrictions, calling for the Supreme Court to intervene and curtail these judicial overreaches.
In an interesting twist, the memo also reassures agencies that they are still authorized to conduct their usual operations, which does imply they can choose not to engage with firms like Jenner & Block. Such language is not only rare but also combative for a position typically characterized by more restrained rhetoric in legal confrontations.
Bondi and Vought’s memo serves not only as a response to the judge’s order but also as a demonstration of a broader stance taken by the Trump administration regarding judicial rulings perceived as overstepping bounds. The memo is submitted as a compliance document, signed by Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff and acting associate attorney general, highlighting the administration’s ongoing contention with the judiciary.
Jenner & Block, along with two other law firms, have succeeded in obtaining temporary restraining orders against the executive orders issued by Trump, which many believe target them due to their engagement in political activities and association with investigations into Trump himself. These executive orders have imposed constraints on several prominent law firms, effectively curtailing their ability to work with federal agencies.
Despite the pushback and the legal challenges, some firms have chosen to negotiate with the Trump administration, opting to align themselves with the White House in order to avoid repercussions. For instance, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, which employs Doug Emhoff, the former second gentleman, has reached an agreement with Trump, whereby it has committed to providing substantial pro bono legal services during his second term.
This situation reveals a complex interplay between government agencies, the legal profession, and the judiciary. Emhoff has articulated a broader concern about the ongoing assault on the rule of law and democracy itself, urging that legal professionals fulfill their responsibilities to counter such threats.
Moreover, Trump’s administration has made similar agreements with several other prominent law firms such as Paul Weiss, Milbank, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, demonstrating an ongoing strategy to secure support from influential legal players in the face of mounting legal challenges.
Finally, Judge Bates, appointed by former President George W. Bush, expressed his reservations about the executive order targeting Jenner & Block. He referred to the targeted actions against the firm as “disturbing” and suggested that they would likely struggle to withstand constitutional scrutiny, further indicating a contentious atmosphere in an already polarized political and legal landscape. As these developments unfold, the implications for the relationships between law firms, the government, and judicial authority remain critical.