Judge torpedoes one of Trump’s most controversial executive orders… and turns tables on president with simple use of punctuation

A federal judge struck down one of President Donald Trump’s most controversial executive orders – and punctuated his fiery 73-page ruling with over two dozen exclamation points.

The president issued a series of executive orders in March suspending major law firms’ security clearances and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work.

In each case, Trump cited the firms’ past work for his political or legal opponents.

But on Tuesday US District Judge Richard Leon torpedoed Trump’s executive order against New York-based WilmerHale.

His ruling marked the third time this month that a federal judge deemed the orders targeting the law firms unconstitutional and permanently barred their enforcement.

Leon’s opinion included over two dozen exclamation points – a rare form of punctuation in court filings – as he scolded the Trump administration for its actions, according to Mediaite. 

‘The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!’ wrote Leon, who was appointed to the federal bench by former Republican President George W. Bush.

‘Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence.

‘I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,’ Leon continued. ‘Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!’

His fiery tone did not end there, as Leon repeatedly shared his exasperation with the Trump administration in his ruling.

In rejecting the government’s argument that any injury claimed by WilmerHale was conjecture because the law firm had not argued it was a federal contractor or intended to bid for such a contract, Leon wrote: ‘Please – that dog won’t hunt!’

He then noted that he agreed with the law firms’ argument that Trump’s executive order ‘discourages clients from retaining or maintaining WilmerHale as their counsel’ by threatening to cancel the contracts of any entity associated with the group.

Leon also called other Trump administration arguments ‘absurd!’ and responded with an exasperated ‘Please!’ to the government’s request to delay relief for the law firm until federal agency heads could issue guidance on its lawyers’ revoked security clearances.

In the end, the judge characterized the executive order as ‘impos[ing] a kitchen sink or severe sanctions on WilmerHale’ for its Constitutionally-protected conduct.

‘Any one of those sanctions would cause clients to strongly reconsider their engagements with WilmerHale,’ Leon said of the restrictions the executive order imposed. 

‘Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm’s protected free speech!

‘This Order is intended to and does, in fact, impede the firm’s ability to effectively represent its clients!’ 

Leon then went on to highlight what he called the ‘retaliatory’ nature of the executive order – which explicitly cited the fact that the firm employed former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, who led the investigation into alleged collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian authorities.  

‘The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!’ he concluded, arguing that the executive order’s ‘viewpoint discrimination’ violates the First Amendment.

He also argued that the Trump administration failed to show how WilmerHale threatened national security or demonstrate how the order would address those concerns.

Additionally, he ruled the Trump administration violated the Fifth Amendment because the executive order was vague and infringed upon the right to counsel.

WilmerHale applauded the ruling Tuesday afternoon 

‘The Court´s decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients,’ it said in a statement. 

‘We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients.’

Leon’s ruling had echoes of other federal judge’s opinions striking down similar edicts.

On Friday, US District Judge John Bates ruled that Trump’s executive order against Jenner & Block was unconstitutional – sayin it ‘seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like,’ according to The Hill.

Earlier this month, US District Judge Beryl Howll also eviscerated Trump’s order against Perkins Coie, which he said ‘draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”‘ 

A fourth suit brought by Susman Godfrey challenging the legality of the executive order against it is still pending.

But many other prominent law firms have sought to avert the orders against them by preemptively reaching settlements that require them to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.

Those areas include assisting veterans and public servants, members of the military, Gold Star families, law enforcement and first responders, and ‘ensuring fairness in our justice system’ as well as combatting antisemitism, the president previously wrote on his Truth Social platform. 

He also suggested he may use the law firms to help the coal industry in leasing and negotiate trade deals.

All together, the deal cut by five law firms brings Trump’s legal kitty close to $1 billion.

The settlement money, Trump claimed, were ‘for damages that they’ve done. But they give you $100 million and then they announce but we have done nothing wrong. And I agree they’ve done nothing wrong.’

‘But what the hell – they give me a lot of money considering they’ve done nothing wrong.’   

The president has not yet commented on Leon’s ruling, and DailyMail.com has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.