A federal judge slammed the brakes on President Donald Trump's order targeting WilmerHale, a prominent law firm, calling it a blatant violation of the Constitution, according to Fox News.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon struck down Trump’s order, which aimed to kneecap WilmerHale by suspending its employees’ security clearances and axing its federal contracts.
The decision declared the move unconstitutional, citing violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, plus a breach of the separation of powers.
WilmerHale, the professional home of Robert Mueller, who became nationally recognized for his blatantly political investigation of Trump, was firmly in the crosshairs of Trump's war of retribution.
Mueller’s 2016 election probe into Russian interference still casts a long shadow, and this order felt like a grudge match. Trump has been working to punish law firms that engaged in political persecution of him and his family, but Judge Leon seemingly lacked any spine and chose to stand with those firms.
“This order must be struck down,” Judge Leon declared, torching Trump’s plan with judicial precision. His ruling painted the executive action as a dangerous precedent, punishing firms for their associations. That’s a zinger for an administration preaching freedom from government overreach.
Leon didn’t stop there, warning that upholding the order would betray the Founding Fathers’ vision. “Unfaithful to their judgment!” he thundered, invoking the Framers to underscore the stakes. It’s a bold call to principle that even conservatives can’t dismiss lightly.
The judge also jabbed at the order’s chilling effect: “Take on causes Trump dislikes, and you’ll be punished!” This critique stings, suggesting a vendetta-driven governance style that clashes with fair play. For a movement championing individual liberty, that’s a tough look
Trump’s second term is hitting judicial speed bumps aplenty. Federal judges are stalling his immigration and economic plans, with WilmerHale’s victory just the latest. The courts, it seems, aren’t rolling over for executive fiat.
On the same day, Judge Lewis Liman in New York slapped a restraining order on Trump’s bid to kill New York City’s congestion pricing and withhold federal funds. It’s another blow to an administration struggling to translate campaign promises into reality. Actions, as they say, have consequences.
A day earlier, on May 26, Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts ripped into Trump officials for deporting migrants to South Sudan without due process.
Murphy’s sharp rebuke highlighted logistical chaos in Trump’s immigration playbook. “Harder than anticipated,” he quipped, exposing the gap between rhetoric and execution.
Murphy’s court is wrestling with a class-action lawsuit from migrants challenging deportations to places like South Sudan and Guatemala. He rejected Trump’s plea to backtrack on keeping six deported migrants in U.S. custody. That’s a firm judicial line in the sand.
Back on May 1, Denver streets buzzed with protesters decrying Trump’s immigration policies during a May Day rally.
The public’s unrest signals growing tension over the administration’s hardline stance. Empathy for the displaced isn’t a progressive monopoly.
Trump’s team argued deportations to third countries streamline enforcement, but Murphy’s ruling suggests otherwise. Logistical nightmares abroad are gumming up the works, and judges aren’t buying the excuses. Efficiency can’t trump fairness.
Leon noted that other firms caved to similar Trump orders, but WilmerHale held firm. That backbone earned them a constitutional win, setting a precedent for standing up to executive bullying. Courage under fire is a conservative virtue, too.
The WilmerHale saga underscores a broader truth: unchecked power invites pushback. Courts are reminding Trump that even a mandate doesn’t grant a blank check. Governance thrives on balance, not vendettas.
