In a shocking blow to the current administration, a judge overturned Trump’s order, saying that the dog will not hunt in relation to the administration’s arguments regarding the prominent law firm WilmerHale’s targeting.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon invalidated Trump’s order against WilmerHale, the firm that employed Trump antagonist Robert Mueller.
This ruling represents the latest in a series of judicial roadblocks hampering the President’s efforts to drain the swamp.
Judge Leon, appointed by George W. Bush, permanently blocked President Trump’s executive order that sought to limit WilmerHale’s influence by suspending security clearances for its employees and canceling federal contracts.
The judge declared the order unconstitutional, citing alleged violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and separation of powers.
WilmerHale found itself in Trump’s crosshairs due to its close association with Mueller, who led the lengthy and costly investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election that found no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
The firm sued, calling the order an “unprecedented assault” on the judicial system.
In his 73-page opinion, Judge Leon dramatically claimed, “If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!”
His ruling was unusually emotional, containing 27 exclamation points and comparing the executive order to a gumbo.
“Please—that dog won’t hunt!” he wrote in response to arguments from the administration that WilmerHale’s claims of harm resulting from the executive order were merely speculation.
This ruling follows similar decisions by other federal judges who have consistently obstructed Trump’s agenda.
Just days ago, U.S. District Judge John Bates blocked another Trump order targeting Jenner Block law firm.
At the same time, a federal judge in New York temporarily halted the administration’s attempt to end New York City’s unpopular congestion pricing program.
The White House has not yet commented on the ruling, which serves as another setback for Trump’s campaign against law firms that have actively opposed his America First agenda.
The executive order specifically targeted law firms associated with Democrat officials or causes that Trump identified as undermining the constitutional order.
Meanwhile, a Massachusetts federal judge criticized Trump officials for allegedly not complying with court orders regarding deported illegal aliens.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy rejected Trump’s request to amend a decision requiring the return of illegal aliens who had been deported to third countries like South Sudan and El Salvador.
These judicial roadblocks continue to frustrate Trump’s efforts to fulfill campaign promises on immigration, economic reform, and holding accountable those involved in the Russia collusion narrative.
The judge’s ruling in the WilmerHale case is part of a pattern of judicial activism that prevents the administration from implementing its policy agenda.
The clash between Trump’s executive authority and judicial independence will undoubtedly continue to unfold as this ruling follows other similar decisions, including the recent block of an order against the firm Jenner & Block.
Whether these legal challenges against Trump’s directives represent a necessary check on executive power or an undue obstruction of a conservative agenda remains fiercely debated.
