Trump’s orders against law firms to sue your government are letting out deported immigrants or public officials failed to be without a form of defending in court.
It is a right enshrined in the first amendment of the United States Constitution and a tactic that, ironically, is widely used by Republicans when Democrats are in power – process the government.
About a year ago, a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court even reinforced that the responsible politicians cannot use their power To retaliate against third parties who do business with their opponents in court.
But the avalanche of hundreds of lawsuits that have been opened to contest the Trump Administration decisions, from deportations to discharges of mass civil servants, led to the US President to advance with a response that, in itself, also violates the law, with the law Imposition of sanctions on law firms who represent clients against the government.
Already with several defeats in court and blockages of judges to his measures, Trump’s goal seems to be completely dissuading lawyers to sue their administration, leaving, for example, civil servants being dismissed by Elon Musk’s doge No legal resources to contest the actions of the government.
In a series of executive orders in recent weeks, Trump has restricted the ability of large law firms, including those who employed their alleged political enemies, to interact with the federal government. Among the arguments stated by the president was that part of the work done by the offices hinders the policies of your administration.
The head of state’s attacks surprised the legal sector and left the very contrasting attitudes that the firms are adopting-three offices advanced with processes to block sanctions, describing them as “unconstitutional“While three others have already signed an agreement with the White House where they commit not to represent the president’s opponents or to offer free legal services to the government.
“I lost the faith that it would not be kidnapped”
Trump’s sanctions to lawyers are another measure in a wave of decisions that have been widely criticized for violating the right to freedom of expression and establishing an environment where criticism of the government is not allowed.
For example, in recent weeks, several students with legal authorization to reside in the United States have been detained by the authorities or deported for having Pro-Palestinian positions and criticize Washington’s support to Israel. The best known case is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a student at Columbia University who was legally in the US but had his visa revoked after organizing protests in defense of Palestine.
Students are also being ordered to do a self-support if they have shared “Anti-National” contents On social networks, with the authorities to resort to artificial intelligence to monitor student accounts.
Momodou such is one of the students who decided to voluntarily leave the US through the climate of fear that settled. “Given what we have seen in the United States, I lost faith that a favorable court decision would guarantee my personal security and ability to express my beliefs. I lost the faith that I could walk the streets without being kidnapped“He said, quoted by.
Recently, several Venezuelans who legally entered the United States with refugee status were also immediately taken to Cecot arrest in El Salvador, which is compared to a “tropical” due to their inhuman conditions, with hundreds of prisoners to share a cell and slave labor programs for the government.
Among the detainees was a homosexual hairdresser who asked for asylum in the US for being chased due to his sexual orientation and a professional goalkeeper. The authorities’ arbitrary criteria to justify the arrests are also being criticized, with the argument based on subjective interpretations of tattoos that are allegedly gang connection symbols -In the case of the goalkeeper, the tattoo artist himself went public to explain that the tattoo in question symbolized Real Madrid, his favorite club.
Confronted on the criteria used for deportation and the impossibility of immigrants taken to El Salvador to be able to defend themselves in court, Tom Homan, Trump’s border tsar fled the question and justified government actions by evoking the case of Laken Riley, a young woman murdered by an illegal immigrant.
“Legal process? Where was Laken Riley’s legal process? Where are all these young women who were killed and murdered by members of the Aragua Tren (Venezuelan gang)? ”Asked Homan.
The use of content on social networks to justify deportations is also raising fears that immigrants are only the first target and this tactic to be used Against all critics of Donald Trump -Especially given El Salvador’s availability to also arrest US citizens.
“Shocking attack on democracy”
In Trump’s reaction to lawyers, Walter Olson, a member of the Cato Institute, warns that this order is more of a “revenge” against certain lawyers. “This aims to send the message that It is dangerous to oppose him in court“, Explains to.
“It is the president’s deliberate intention to prevent the country’s largest law firms from representing cases of which he does not like,” says Cecillia D. Wang, national legal director of the American Union of Civil Liberties. “This action of the president of the United States is a unprecedented and shocking attack to the foundations of freedom and democracy, ”he says.
Law teacher and ex-judgment Nancy Gertner considers that Trump’s decisions are out of the “authoritarian manual.” “He needs to delegitimize institutions that may be critical. Trump is seeking to use the power of the presidency to delegitimize institutions, including universities, law firms, judges and others. It is the opposite of American democracy,” he says.
Former lawyer David Lat believes the measure will make the government even more powerful. “These companies are in Vanguard of the fight against the Trump government In a series of questions. So if Donald Trump can force or scare law firms not to accept cases against his government, it will allow the government to become more powerful, ”he says.
Lat compared executive orders to a boxing fight in which a fighter tries to cut his opponent’s arms. “In America, our legal system is based on the idea that you have the right to a lawyer, and these executive orders are preventing law firms and lawyers from accepting certain cases. The other question is that they are a threat to the rule of law And they are a threat to the opposing system that feeds our justice system, ”he says.
