The Justice Department is once again criticizing a federal judge for taking steps to block one of the Trump administration’s policies, this time an executive order against a big law firm.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a memo sent recently to federal agencies, said an “unelected federal judge” had overstepped his authority in temporarily blocking most of an executive order that President Trump issued last month against the firm Jenner & Block. The memo said the judge’s order had “yet again invaded the policy-making and free speech prerogatives of the executive branch.”
The memo, which was co-signed by Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, was included in a status report filed on Tuesday evening in federal court. Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court in Washington, who issued the restraining order, had asked the Justice Department to provide updates on how the administration was complying with it.
The memo said that while government agencies should pay heed to the restraining order, the executive order was justified because Jenner & Block was “committed to the weaponization of justice, discrimination on the basis of race, radical gender ideology and other anti-American pursuits.”
Members of the Trump administration have repeatedly criticized federal judges who have issued orders blocking a variety of government policies. A frequent line of attack is that the orders are coming from “unelected judges” who are denying the wishes of the voters who elected Mr. Trump.
Earlier on Tuesday, Jenner & Block filed a motion to make Judge Bates’s temporary restraining order permanent, and WilmerHale, another law firm targeted by a Trump executive order, filed a parallel request on a separate restraining order from another federal judge, Richard J. Leon.
The executive orders signed by Mr. Trump portray the law firms as national security risks and call for actions that would make it difficult or impossible them to represent companies with government contracts or in need of regulatory approvals, and would prevent lawyers from even entering federal buildings — including courthouses.
The firms contend that Mr. Trump’s actions against them are unconstitutional.
The Justice Department filed motions late on Tuesday to dismiss the suits brought by the two law firms challenging the executive orders. The department argued that both law firms were “muzzling” the president’s right to speak out against legal practices that he maintains are unlawful.
In particular, the government’s court filings focused on the firms’ hiring practices, which the government said were unlawful because each engaged in diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
Mr. Trump, upon taking office, issued broad mandates to eliminate all forms of D.E.I. hiring practices and policies in the federal government, and his appointees have rapidly worked to enact those bans. In March, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters to 20 law firms requesting information about their D.E.I. practices. One of those firms was WilmerHale.
Matthew Goldstein is a Times reporter who covers Wall Street and white-collar crime and housing issues.
The post Justice Dept. Criticizes Another Federal Judge for Blocking a Trump Executive Order appeared first on New York Times.
