Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told students at Georgetown University that judges should be “fiercely independent” in responding to growing challenges to the rule of law.

Speaking at a forum Friday, Sotomayor said judges need to “ensure that the state is respectful” of both judicial independence and the rights protected by the Constitution.

Sotomayor didn’t mention President Donald Trump or his criticism of judges who ruled against him in some of the more than 175 lawsuits challenging his executive orders. But the liberal justice acknowledged concerns that the country was seeing a decline in “common norms,” which she said were crucial to a functioning justice system. 

“Once we lose our common norms, we’ve lost the rule of law completely,” Sotomayor, 70, said during an hourlong conversation with Georgetown’s law school dean, William Treanor.

Earlier in the day, Trump asked the Supreme Court to let his administration resume deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members without hearings. 

The president argues he has the authority under a 1798 law previously used only in wartime. The deportations have been on hold since March 15, when the administration sent two planes of migrants to a prison in El Salvador despite a judge’s verbal order for the aircraft to turn around.

Trump and his aides have repeatedly blasted judges for halting parts of his far-reaching agenda. Earlier this month, the president posted on social media that the jurist in the deportation case was a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator” and should be impeached.

After Trump made those remarks, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an unusual statement, saying the impeachment of federal judges is “not an appropriate response” to disagreement with their rulings. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Source link

The Danish foreign minister on Saturday scolded the Trump administration for its “tone” in criticizing Denmark and Greenland, saying his country is already investing more into Arctic security and remains open to more cooperation with the U.S.

Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, make the remarks in a video posted to social media after U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the strategic island.

“Many accusations and many allegations have been made. And of course we are open to criticism,” Rasmussen said speaking in English. “But let me be completely honest: we do not appreciate the tone in which it is being delivered. This is not how you speak to your close allies. And I still consider Denmark and the United States to be close allies.”

Vance on Friday said Denmark has “underinvested” in Greenland’s security and demanded that Denmark change its approach as President Donald Trump pushes to take over the Danish territory.

Vance visited U.S. troops on Pituffik Space Base on mineral-rich Greenland alongside his wife and other senior U.S. officials for a trip that was ultimately scaled back after an uproar among Greenlanders and Danes who were not consulted about the original itinerary.

“Our message to Denmark is very simple: You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland,” Vance said Friday. “You have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass filled with incredible people. That has to change.”

Trump on Friday released a video on his social networking site Truth Social entitled “America Stands With Greenland,” showing footage of U.S. troops there during World War II.

In Greenland, Vance said the U.S. has “no option” but to take a significant position to ensure the security of the island as he encouraged a push in Greenland for independence from Denmark.

“I think that they ultimately will partner with the United States,” Vance said. “We could make them much more secure. We could do a lot more protection. And I think they’d fare a lot better economically as well.”

The reaction by members of Greenland’s parliament and residents has rendered that unlikely, with anger erupting over the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the vast Arctic island. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen pushed back on Vance’s claim that Denmark isn’t doing enough for defense in the Arctic, calling her country “a good and strong ally.”

And Greenlandic lawmakers on Thursday agreed to form a new government, banding together to resist Trump’s overtures. Four of the five parties elected to Greenland’s parliament earlier this month have agreed to form a coalition that will have 23 of 31 seats in the legislature.

Hundreds of protesters demonstrated Saturday outside the U.S. Embassy in the Danish capital Copenhagen with some lifting signs saying, “back off, USA” Danish broadcaster TV2 reported.

Løkke Rasmussen, in his video, reminded viewers of the 1951 defense agreement between Denmark and the United States. Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations on the island, he said, to the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest with some 200 soldiers today.

The 1951 agreement “offers ample opportunity for the United States to have a much stronger military presence in Greenland,” the foreign minister said. “If that is what you wish, then let us discuss it.”

Løkke Rasmussen added that Denmark has increased its own investment into Arctic defense. In January, Denmark announced 14.6 billion Danish kroner (US$2.1 billion) in financial commitments for Arctic security covering three new naval vessels, long-range drones and satellites.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Source link

A prominent international law firm reached a deal with President Donald Trump on Friday to dedicate at least $100 million in free legal services and to review its hiring practices, averting a punishing executive order like the ones directed at nearly a half-dozen other major legal institutions in recent weeks.

The deal with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom was announced just hours after two other law firms sued in federal court over executive orders that threatened the suspension of their attorneys’ security clearances and their access to federal buildings. Judges on Friday evening temporarily blocked the enforcement of key parts of the executive orders against those firms, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block.

The contrasting approaches reflect divisions within the legal community on whether to fight or negotiate as Trump seeks to extract major concessions from some of the world’s most significant law firms and in some cases punish them over their association with prosecutors who previously investigated him. Besides Skadden Arps, another firm, Paul Weiss, has reached an agreement with the White House, a deal that prompted major backlash last week from lawyers who said the capitulation set a bad precedent.

In a message to his firm, Skadden Arps executive partner Jeremy London said the firm had recently learned that the Trump administration intended to issue an executive order targeting it over its pro bono legal work and its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

“When faced with this information, we carefully considered what the right path would be for us, and the answer was not obvious. We were thoughtful and deliberate in determining the steps we might take, knowing that the decisions we were grappling with would have fundamental consequences for our firm,” London wrote in the message, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

He added that the firm opted to enter negotiations with the administration in hopes of warding off the issuance of an executive order.

“We entered into the agreement the President announced today because, when faced with the alternatives, it became clear that it was the best path to protect our clients, our people, and our Firm,” he wrote.

As part of the deal, Skadden Arps agreed, among others things, to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services related to causes including veterans affairs and countering antisemitism. It also pledged a commitment to merit-based hiring and to use an independent counsel to make sure its employment practices are legal and don’t rely on diversity, equity and inclusion considerations.

The two firms who sued on Friday, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, argued in their complaints that the orders amount to an unprecedented assault on the legal system and represent an unconstitutional form of presidential retaliation.

“Our Constitution, top to bottom, forbids attempts by the government to punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate,” said the complaint from Jenner & Block, filed in federal court in Washington.

After arguments Friday, two different federal judges in Washington granted temporary restraining orders sought by the firms to block enforcement of key portions of the order dealing with access to federal buildings and government contracts. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, ruling in the case of WilmerHale, said the firm “faces more than economic harm — it faces crippling losses and its very survival is at stake.”

“We appreciate the court’s swift action to preserve our clients’ right to counsel and acknowledgement of the unconstitutional nature of the executive order and its chilling effect on the legal system. The court’s decision to block key provisions of the order vindicates our and our clients’ foundational First Amendment rights,” a WilmerHale spokesperson said in a statement.

The firms argued the executive orders, issued earlier in the week, have already affected their business, with Jenner & Block saying that one client has been notified by the Justice Department that the firm cannot attend an upcoming meeting at the building.

“That client therefore will either need to attend the meeting without outside counsel or would need to retain new outside counsel before April 3,” the lawsuit says.

The WilmerHale complaint raises similar concerns, calling it a flagrant violation of the firm’s rights.

“It imposes severe consequences without notice or any opportunity to be heard; it uses vague, expansive language that does not adequately inform WilmerHale (or its clients) of what conduct triggered these extraordinary sanctions; and it unfairly singles out WilmerHale based on its perceived connections to disfavored individuals and causes,” the lawsuit says.

Targeted law firms have taken different approaches to the executive orders that threaten to upend their business model and chill their legal practice.

Earlier this month, the law firm of Perkins Coie also challenged the Trump order in court and succeeded in getting a judge to temporarily block enforcement. The Paul Weiss firm, by contrast, cut a deal with the White House days after it was subjected to an executive order, with its chairman saying that the order presented an “existential crisis” for the firm and that he wasn’t sure it could have survived a protracted fight with the Trump administration.

The executive order against Jenner & Block this week stemmed from the fact that the firm once employed Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer who served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump during his first term in office over potential connections between his 2016 campaign and Russia. Weissmann, a frequent public target of Trump’s ire, left the firm several years ago.

Mueller has retired from WilmerHale, but the White House executive order from Thursday mentions him as well as another retired partner and a current partner who all served on Mueller’s team.

“While most litigation requires discovery to unearth retaliatory motive, the Order makes no secret of its intent to punish WilmerHale for its past and current representations of clients before the Nation’s courts and for its perceived connection to the views that Mr. Mueller expressed as Special Counsel,” the WilmerHale lawsuit says.

The first executive order targeted Covington & Burling, a firm that has provided legal representation to special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated Trump during the Biden administration and filed two separate criminal cases that were abandoned after Trump’s election win last November.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Source link