Welcome to Seabolt's Public Square

Seabolt’s Public Square

  • Activist Judges Or Defenders Of The Rule Of Law

    Activist Judges Or Defenders Of The Rule Of Law

    The U.S. Court of International Trade recently struck down many of the Administration’s tariffs against China, Mexico, Canada and others. This has caused quite a stir. The Administration claims that activist judges are blocking the will of the people. A convenient spin, but perhaps not an intellectually honest one.

    These Were Not Activist Judges

    International trade is a highly specialized area of the law. The U.S. Court of International Trade is a specialized federal court with limited jurisdiction over U.S. customs and international trade laws. A three-judge panel issued the decision, consisting of an Obama appointee, a Trump appointee, and a Reagan appointee. Each judge had decades of experience in international trade matters before being appointed to the bench. These judges are uniquely qualified to decide international trade matters. The three judges issued a 49-page opinion “per curiam,” which means they unanimously agreed.

    Under our system, Congress passes the law, the Executive enforces the law, and the Courts interpret and apply the law. An “activist” judge refers to a judge who creates new law under the guise of interpreting and applying existing law. The Administration applies the activist label more broadly to any judge who rules against it. The judges who struck down the tariffs are not activists. They did not create new law. The judges read the Constitution, the Executive Orders and the relevant legislation. They applied Supreme Court precedent. Then they arrived at a considered conclusion. They did what courts ought to do.

    The President Has Limited Power To Impose Tariffs

    Our Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose taxes and levy duties. Congress can and has passed laws giving the President the authority to impose tariffs in limited circumstances. Importantly, Congress cannot grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs. That would be an abdication of Congress’ constitutional responsibility and would itself be unconstitutional. Rather, Congress must carefully prescribe the circumstances under which the President can impose tariffs.

    Congress did that in 1977 when it passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). This is the Act under which the President purported to impose many of his tariffs. There are two requirements of the IEEPA that were particularly important to the Court’s analysis. The IEEPA requires there to be an “emergency.” It further requires that the measures, here tariffs, “deal with” the emergency. The Administration cited the importation of illegal drugs like fentanyl as an emergency with Canada, Mexico and China. The Administration cited trade deficits as an emergency with virtually all of our trade partners. The Court found that certain of the tariffs did not fall within the “emergency” requirement. It found that certain other tariffs did not “deal with” the claimed emergency. The Court noted that rather than dealing with an emergency, the tariffs appeared to be just leverage in negotiations. Of course, that is exactly what they are.

    Interestingly, the President may have been the instrument of his own defeat here. The President has implemented tariffs in a manner that suggests there are no limits on his authority. Recall here the President’s imposition of 10% tariffs, then 25% on Canada and Mexico, then Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs, then 145% on China, then pause the Liberation Day tariffs for 90-days, then pause 145% with China and reduce to 30% for 90-days, etc. The Court detailed the chaotic tariff timeline to demonstrate that the President has been acting with unlimited authority. This is constitutionally infirm. The President may have been too clever by half.

    The Tariffs Are In Serious Jeopardy

    The parties will appeal, first to the Federal Circuit and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision is stayed pending appeal, which means the tariffs remain in place for now. We can expect the stay to continue until the parties exhaust the appeals. We should not read too much into the stay. It is a nod to the fact that unwinding the tariffs is complicated and will be highly disruptive. The courts should make sure they got this right before flipping that switch.

    I am not sure how this one will ultimately turn out. Unlike some other maneuvers, the Administration at least has something to talk about here. On balance, I think the Administration is fighting an uphill battle. I also think the President’s penchant for chaos may be his undoing. It is simply too hard to square his tariff behavior with a limited grant of authority. The tariffs are hanging by a very thin thread.

    Congress Is Watching From The Cheap Seats

    The Administration undoubtedly knew all the risks when it rolled out its tariffs. No one should be surprised to see the courts pushing back, least of all the Administration. We now are hearing the predictable retort from the Administration that courts are usurping the will of the people. This is balderdash. The will of the people is expressed in the laws of the United States as passed by Congress and signed by the President. By enforcing these laws, the courts are in fact honoring the will of the people. If the law no longer expresses the will of the people, then Congress needs to change it.

    Unsurprisingly, Congress is missing in action here. I understand the Administration’s desire to use unilateral executive action to bypass a dysfunctional Congress. Unilateral executive action is swift and certain. But it is also antithetical to the democratic process. That is why unilateral executive action is only allowed in specific and limited circumstances. Saving those circumstances, Congress remains a necessary part of the process. Competing bills, committee hearings, congressional debates, negotiations, public votes. These are all part of the democratic process. It is messy, and it is full contact. But it is also central to our democracy. We cannot ignore our democratic institutions simply because it is expedient to do so. That is a slippery slope.

    The Administration Took A Big Gamble

    The Administration knew full well that it was on tenuous legal ground when it started this trade war. Perhaps the Administration thought it could close enough trade deals before the courts put on the brakes. Remember after Liberation Day, we heard 90 deals in 90 days. We are just about 60 days in, and we don’t have one deal. Not one. The “deal” with the UK is nonbinding. The “deal” with China is simply an agreement to negotiate. These are not deals at all.

    Consider the tariff fallout that we have absorbed in the meantime. A global trade war. Alienating our allies. Disrupting international supply chains. Stock market turmoil. Bond market uncertainty. Shrinking GDP. Instructions to “eat the tariffs.” Falling consumer sentiment. Inflation at our shores. Now we learn the President may not have had the authority to start this trade war in the first place. This would be an international embarrassment the likes of which we have never seen before.

  • The Greatest Hyperbole In The History Of The World

    The Greatest Hyperbole In The History Of The World

    Unhinged. Rant. Meltdown. Nasty. Losers. Like we have never seen before.

    These are some of the words and phrases dominating our political discourse these days. These once powerful words are used so frequently that they have lost any real meaning. They are little more than click bait.

    Hyperbole Alone Does Not Require Critical Thought

    I appreciate well placed hyperbole. I use it myself sometimes. However, hyperbole does not stand on its own. It needs to be anchored to facts, figures, reasoning and analysis. Hyperbole is the punchline, not the setup. We should not mistake naked hyperbole for a well-reasoned argument. They are not the same thing. Hyperbole without more is just noise.

    A professor taught me years ago that the best way to prove something is neither clear nor obvious is to use the words “clearly” or “obviously.” Politicians use words like these all the time, and we let them get away with it. Politicians should be capable of going deeper. And we should demand it.

    Our Political Discourse Is Being Meme-ified

    I love a clever meme. Cats with attitude. Squirrels giving side-eye. The world’s most interesting man. It’s good fun. But memes are a horrible medium for debating complex policy issues. They don’t allow for context, or nuance, or even fact in some instances. Too often we see self-satisfied memes declaring someone’s patriotic superiority, or demeaning someone else’s patriotism. These sorts of political memes typically don’t say anything of substance. They don’t prove a point, unless the point is that we are not open to debate or opposing views. Political memes evoke emotional responses, not thoughtful ones. They shut down debate and short-circuit our own critical thinking.

    We Need Thoughtful Politicians, Not Clever Ones

    Twitter (now X) and Truth Social are not much better. Being glib and making quips is no substitute for a cogent argument. But we let politicians get away with this kind of shallow thinking all the time. And stop with the all caps. I get it. You really, really mean it. I am taking the time to read your post. Please stop yelling at me.

    Our President loves his Truth Social platform. He loves his hyperbole, his name-calling, and his all caps. Pardon my own hyperbole for a moment, but our President is the G.O.A.T. when it comes to controlling the narrative through social media. He can whip his supporters, his opponents and the media into a frenzy with a single post. The President knows exactly what words to use. As with a meme, we read certain phrases, react emotionally, and stop thinking critically. The media then spends the next news cycle trying to unpack what the President meant by his post. In the meantime, the President is moving his agenda forward and avoiding any meaningful debate over the underlying policy questions. It really is the work of a genius.

    In singling out the President, I don’t mean to suggest that other politicians don’t do the same thing. They do. The President is just better at it than other politicians.

    We Should Respond, Not React

    But these social media posts are a disservice to us all. They reduce us to the sum of our emotions and ignore our ability to think critically. We should stop taking the bait every time we read hyperbole, or name-calling, or all caps. When politicians answer questions with venom rather than reason, we should ask why. And we should stop reacting and start responding with measure, deliberation and forethought.

  • The Administration Is Giving Up The Ghost On Tariffs

    The Administration Is Giving Up The Ghost On Tariffs

    You may have read the Administration is demanding that one of the largest U.S. retailers “eat the tariffs.” This was the Administration’s response to the retailer announcing that it is raising prices as a result of the tariffs. The Administration has insisted throughout this trade war that foreign exporters would absorb the tariffs. If that were the case, then there would be nothing for retailers to “eat.” By telling U.S. retailers to “eat the tariffs,” the Administration is giving up the ghost.

    The Truth Remains About Tariffs

    The truth is that there was never going to be a circumstance where foreign exporters absorbed the tariffs. Never. It was always going to be the case that tariffs would be passed on to U.S. retailers and then to consumers. Always. The Administration will try to blame U.S. retailers once the tariffs really start to impact consumers, but don’t be fooled when that happens. This is 100% on the Administration. The retailers are doing precisely what for-profit enterprises are supposed to do when the government jacks up their cost structure.

    New Vocabularies Don’t Change The Economic Realities

    Some companies are starting to change their vocabularies in earnings calls and other public statements to evade the Administration’s wrath. However, the economic realities facing those companies are the same. And don’t expect shareholders of those companies to fall for the “eat the tariffs” nonsense. Shareholders are not going to carry the Administration’s gambling debt nor should they. Shareholders will expect their companies to raise prices in response to tariffs and preserve profit margin.

    Keep in mind that these are some of the largest retailers in the world announcing price increases. They have more purchasing power than most any other company on the planet. Yet they are being forced to pay increased prices to foreign exporters as a result of the tariffs. If these behemoths have to pay higher prices, then the rest of us mere mortals don’t stand a chance.

    These Are Not Isolated Incidents

    Allianz recently published the results of a survey of 4,500 exporters across multiple countries, including the U.S. According to the survey, the go-to strategy for dealing with tariffs remains increasing prices. 54% of U.S. companies in the survey plan to raise prices. The second strategy is to find new trading channels. Companies that traditionally exported to the U.S. are looking for new trading partners in the EU and Asia. This is another bit of fallout that the Administration doesn’t seem to have accurately calculated.

    I know I have spilled a good amount of ink writing about the trade war. But I happen to think it is an exceedingly important issue, second only to our national debt. The trade war was wholly avoidable and is entirely self-inflicted. The Administration alone is responsible for the fallout.

  • The Government Is Punching Down On Our Poor People

    The Government Is Punching Down On Our Poor People

    I apologize for multiple posts in a row, but these budget discussions are getting my Irish up.

    The House passed the budget this morning. This was a mere 24-hours after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its preliminary analysis of the budget. The timing looks like some Representatives were voting on the budget before they really understood what was in it.

    The Bill Cuts Almost $1 Trillion From Programs For The Poor

    According to the CBO, the big loser in this budget is poor people. The CBO found that the budget will reduce federal subsidies for Medicaid by $698 billion between 2026-2034. I am embarrassed to admit that I used to forget the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is for our seniors. Medicaid is for our poor. There is another $267 billion in cuts for SNAP, which are food stamp programs. Despite these deep cuts to programs for our poor, the CBO still projects the federal debt will grow by $3.8 trillion over the same period. This is due largely to extending tax cuts, introducing new tax cuts, and increasing defense spending.

    According to the CBO, in 2024, the top five line items in the federal budget were: SS ($1.454 trillion), Medicare ($1.089 trillion), defense ($954 billion), net interest ($881 billion), and Medicaid ($618 billion). Congress is not touching SS or Medicare. Congress is increasing defense spending by more than 13% and increasing our interest expense by increasing the debt. So I find myself asking why did we skip the top four line items and jump directly to the fifth.

    The Administration And Congress Made A Political Calculation To Target The Poor

    The answer, it seems to me, is that poor people can’t afford expensive lobbyists. Politicians will sooner risk losing votes from poor people than losing votes from seniors. Seniors are vocal, organized, mobilized, and well-represented, and they vote in large numbers. Large swaths of D.C. denizens are themselves seniors. Even though it is in our national interest to make structural changes to SS and Medicare, Congress won’t do it because it means potentially losing votes. This is another political calculation that ignores the math around our unsustainable debt. Our elected officials do not have the political courage to do what is necessary to secure our future. But they don’t seem to have a problem targeting poor people.

    Now I am not saying that Medicaid should be immune from budget discussions. It should not. But I have zero confidence that the Administration or the House brought the kind of thoughtful consideration to Medicaid cuts that is necessary to ensure that worthy recipients are not denied critical support.

    Despite These Deep Cuts, Our National Debt Is Still Growing

    The Administration and Congress will undoubtedly say that Medicaid cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit. Except the deficit is still growing. When one compares the Medicaid cuts to tax breaks favoring the wealthy, it looks like we are taking money away from poor people and giving it to wealthy people. I don’t think this is how social welfare programs are supposed to work. The greatness of a civilization ought to be measured in large part by how it treats the less fortunate. On this score, we are failing.

    Politicians Cannot Outrun The Math

    To be clear, I don’t want to cut SS, Medicare or Medicaid. But I am a realist, and I can do the math. This is not a matter of want. This is a matter of necessity and what is in our national interest. We simply cannot afford to continue ignoring the problem. Unless and until our government gets serious about reducing the deficit and bringing the debt under control, these Medicaid cuts are just punching down.

  • Congress Is Fighting Over The Wrong Things In The Budget

    The budget discussions are coming fast and furious this week so I will be writing a bit more frequently.

    There have been some Republican coalitions forming who oppose and could block the tax Bill currently in Congress. I like the idea of a political party holding itself accountable so I dug into it.

    What Exactly Is The SALT Caucus?

    One of the coalitions is the so-called SALT caucus. SALT stands for state and and local taxes. Taxpayers are permitted to deduct what they pay in state and local taxes on their federal income tax returns. The deduction includes things like state income tax and local property tax. For those who make substantial income and own expensive homes, this deduction can be quite valuable. Only about 10% of tax filers claim a SALT deduction and those tend to be wealthier Americans. Prior to 2017, the SALT deduction was unlimited. In 2017, there was a $10K cap introduced.

    The SALT Caucus Wants More Tax Cuts For The Wealthy

    The Bill proposes to increase the cap from $10K to $30K for joint filers making up to $400K per year. This is a tax break that would favor the wealthy. The SALT caucus thinks the $30K cap is still too low. They want to increase the cap to $62K for individuals and $124K for joint filers. This would favor an even wealthier class of taxpayers.

    After I first published this post, I received a comment from a friend who is a school teacher in the Bronx. She explained that she pays exorbitant property taxes on a teacher’s salary and could benefit from an increase in the SALT cap. I take that point. There are some working class folks who would benefit from an increase in the SALT cap. If the Bill was limited to working class folks, I would not have a problem with it. But the Bill is not limited to working class folks. The vast majority of people who will benefit from this Bill are wealthy.

    More to the point, after I first published this post, the SALT Caucus announced that it had reached a compromise. The upper income threshold was increased from $400K to $500K. The cap remains at $30K. In other words, the SALT caucus made sure that even more wealthy people would benefit from the increased cap. They folded like a cheap suit on the cap itself.

    We Need To Get Back To The Basics Of Reducing Our Debt And Deficits

    So I am reading all of this and I cannot help but think, what are we doing here? Our government can ill afford to be handing out tax breaks, let alone tax breaks that favor the wealthy. Increasing the SALT cap for Americans making up to $500K per year favors the wealthy and exacerbates our deficit. The only calculations these representatives seem capable of performing are political calculations. They are incapable of basic arithmetic. They certainly do not have the skill set to manage the debt crisis we are facing. Something must change.

  • The Government Is Not Seriously Addressing Our National Debt Or Deficit

    The news out of DC is currently dominated by the 2026 budget Bill. There is a great deal to unpack but I want to start with a level set.

    Our National Debt Is Growing Faster Than Our Economy

    In 2019, the year before Covid, the federal deficit was $985 billion. In 2020 and 2021, the federal deficit ballooned to $3.1 trillion and $2.8 trillion, respectively, due to Covid. Coming out of Covid, if our federal government had acted responsibly, the federal deficit should have come down and approached 2019 levels over time. That did not happen. Instead, the federal deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2022, $1.7 trillion in 2023, and $1.8 trillion in 2024. We are on pace for a federal deficit of $1.9 trillion this fiscal year.

    The Wharton School of Business projects that the current Bill will add $3.2 trillion to our debt over the next ten years. This is on top of deficits that were already projected. In other words, the proposed budget is going in the wrong direction. Moreover, our debt is larger than our GDP and is growing at a rate faster than our GDP. This is not sustainable, though it may help explain why Moody’s downgraded the US, and why we have seen some wonkiness in US treasury bonds.

    We Should Question Our Defense Spending

    Approximately 30% ($1.8 trillion) of the federal budget is discretionary spending. More than half of our discretionary spending ($890 billion) is defense. The proposed budget reduces discretionary spending by 7.6%, but includes a 13.4% increase in defense spending, to just over $1 trillion. To put this in perspective, China’s defense budget is $296 billion and Russia’s is $145 billion. It is not clear to me why we need such a large increase in defense spending or why our politicians seem so unwilling to question this sacred cow.

    We Cannot Balance The Budget Without Making Structural Changes To Social Welfare Programs

    Approximately 70% of the federal budget is mandatory spending. This includes interest on our national debt and social welfare programs like SS and Medicare. With our aging population, the cost of these social welfare programs is rapidly increasing. Many politicians have proclaimed that they will not touch social welfare programs. However, the Bill currently under consideration contains the following interesting little morsel: “In the House of Representatives, the goal of this concurrent resolution is to reduce mandatory spending by $2 trillion over the budget window.” In my view, the House is signaling that it will eventually have to make changes to social welfare programs in order to stem our growing debt. It has to. The math just does not work otherwise.

    DOGE Is Still Not The Answer

    As I researched this, I found myself asking where is DOGE in all of this. When DOGE was first announced, we heard predictions that it would save $2 trillion, then $1 trillion, then $500 billion, etc. According to the DOGE website, current savings are estimated to be $170 billion. It is unclear to me if these savings are over a year or ten years or something in between. It isn’t nothing, but it isn’t going to cure our debt and deficit woes either.

    Politicians Are Not Shooting Us Straight When It Comes To The Debt And Deficit

    In short, our government continues to straddle us with unsustainable debt. As a result, the American taxpayer is going to feel some pain in the coming years. That pain will come in the form of tax increases or reductions in social welfare programs or both. There is no other way to stem our growing debt.

  • The Congresswoman Offers No Solutions To Serious Issues

    The Congresswoman Offers No Solutions To Serious Issues

    I recently wrote to my Congresswoman and raised two issues for now: trade deficits and illegal immigration. I specifically asked for proposed strategies to address these two issues. Attached is the response I received.

    No Proposed Trade Policy

    A few things you might notice about the response. First, the Congresswoman is long on criticism of the Administration and short on solutions. She offers various critiques of the Administration’s tariff rollout – some of which I agree with – but she does not offer any alternative strategy. The Congresswoman acknowledges that tariffs can be a useful tool but never explains how. She claims we need a “focused strategy” for amending the USMCA (the successor to NAFTA) but does not offer such a strategy. Digging deeper, I reviewed the “Issues” page on the Congresswoman’s website, and I could not find a proposed strategy for deploying tariffs or amending the USMCA. Swing and a miss. Strike one.

    No Proposed Solution On China

    The second thing you might notice is that while she mentions China, there is no real discussion of what we ought to be doing with China. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to trade. The Congresswoman’s Issues page on her website similarly offers no strategy for dealing with China. Swing and a miss. Strike two.

    No Mention Of Immigration

    The third thing you might notice is that the Congresswoman does not deign to mention illegal immigration. I waited several days to see if there might be a separate response coming. Nope. Nothing. Again, I reviewed the Congresswoman’s Issues page on her website and could not find any mention of illegal immigration. The Congresswoman did not even get the bat off her shoulder on this pitch. Fast ball down the middle for a called third strike.

    What The Congresswoman Is Doing Is Not Good Enough

    We live in serious times, friends. We face serious issues that require serious solutions from serious people. In the absence of a better idea, we are left with the only idea being offered. Many of the issues facing our country call for a legislative solution. Saving that, the Administration will continue lapping the field issuing Executive Orders at breakneck speed, while our legislators are still lacing up their running shoes. Congress is feckless. Congress is abdicating its constitutional responsibility to serve as the policymaking body in our government and to provide a check on Executive power. Hardly any of our legislators deserve our votes. We should hold them to account.

    2025.04.29 dingell letterDownload

  • The Tariff Canary Is Whistling An Inflationary Tune

    One of our beloved U.S. automakers just announced price increases on three vehicles assembled in Mexico by as much as $2,000. This may be the proverbial canary in the coal mine whistling about the inflationary effects of tariffs. Mind you, the automaker simply followed the path to Mexico plowed by our government 30 years ago (NAFTA). That same government is now punishing the automaker for having complied with free trade policy.

    Manufacturers Cannot Properly Plan Without Consistent Policy

    Multiple automakers suspended guidance to their investors or made downward adjustments given the tariff uncertainty. Companies don’t know where or how to deploy their capital, or how to forecast pricing and cost models, so they are standing around on one foot waiting for some consistent policy to be announced.

    It Will Take Some Time Before Consumers Feel The Impact Of Tariffs

    Consumers will not feel the price impact for a bit. The original China tariffs (145%/125%) were effectively an embargo that halted trade between the U.S. and China. As a result, supply chains between China and the U.S. were interrupted and will take some time to be reinvigorated. We may see some impact of the China tariffs sooner, but we will want to pay particular attention in June and July as products that are being manufactured in China now start to find their way onto retail shelves in the U.S.

    We Should Keep Score

    I mentioned a few weeks ago that when the U.S. inevitably started to announce trade deals, we would need to take stock of how we fared in the negotiations. That time is approaching. Every time the cost of something increases as a result of the tariffs (like the vehicles mentioned above), that is the tariff being passed onto us as consumers. It is a tax increase. It may not be 100% of the tariff, but it certainly will not be 0% either. When all is said and done, if the tariffs hold, I think the tax increase on the American people will be significant. Time will tell.

  • Stop Grandstanding And Start Legislating

    Recently, a Michigan Congressman introduced articles of impeachment directed at the President. Impeachment sounds serious, so I decided to take a closer look.

    Impeachment Is A High Bar

    To set the stage, Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution provides, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, which serves as the charging document. The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments, which require a 2/3 vote (67/100) to convict.

    Policy Disagreements Are Not Impeachable

    I read the articles of impeachment fairly closely, and I found that the vast majority of accusations do not approach the high bar for impeachment. The articles include accusations like abuse of Executive power, usurpation of appropriations power, abuse of trade powers, First Amendment violations, creation of DOGE, and the like. All of these may be legitimate criticisms of our President, but that does not make them impeachable. Policy disagreements are not impeachable. Violating the First Amendment is not impeachable. Expanding Executive power is not impeachable. Indeed, throughout the history of our country, most every President has had arm wrestling matches with Congress over the proper division between Executive and Legislative power. It is nothing new, and these power struggles are not impeachable.

    Most – maybe all – of the issues in the articles of impeachment are currently being litigated in federal courts. The courts are doing their job of interpreting and applying the Constitution and laws of the U.S. The courts do not need an assist from the Congressman.

    The Articles Of Impeachment Will Only Further Divide Us

    There are some accusations that could be impeachable, like bribery, though that is far from clear. And it is also far from clear that these articles will ever gather the kind of support needed to convict. The President’s opponents have tried to impeach him twice before. Both attempts failed. He was impeached but not convicted, and it cost the American people untold dollars, airtime, distraction and gray matter.

    It seems to me that this latest impeachment attempt is being used to rally opponents of the Admin. Many people will be quick to jump on the impeachment bandwagon because they do not like the President or what he is doing. I understand that reaction, but I would suggest that we all exercise some caution and take a closer look at whether impeachment is the proper route here.

    In the meantime, these articles of impeachment are also going to rally the Admin’s supporters who think the President has been unfairly persecuted. Again, I get it. But it is the politics of division all over again. What the Congressman is doing with these articles of impeachment is no different than how the Admin uses issues of illegal immigration to rally its base. It is a political stunt being used in the place of real debate or policymaking.

    The Gentleman From Michigan Should Get Back To His Day Job

    I have been critical of the Admin on a number of issues. But I am trying to maintain my objectivity. I understand this Admin is a handful. As a result, the Congressman’s job is hard. But our jobs are hard, too. And we don’t get to stop doing our jobs when they get harder. The Congressman should drop these articles of impeachment, let the courts do their job, and get back to doing his.

  • Law Firms Are Standing In The Breach Protecting Our Rights

    Before March of this year, I tended to stay away from politics on FB. This changed when the Admin began targeting lawyers and law firms. The Admin issued and threatened to issue Executive Orders seeking to punish lawyers and law firms for representing the President’s political opponents and for taking positions that were adverse to the President’s agenda. Having spent nearly 30 years practicing law, I could no longer sit idly by in the face of this unprecedented attack on my profession.

    A Handful Of Law Firms Are Fighting Back

    On Friday, one of the law firms being targeted, Perkins Coie, secured a significant victory in its lawsuit against the government challenging the EO. The Court issued a 102-page opinion in which it found that the EO violated the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to our Constitution. The Court found that the EO was unconstitutional because, among other reasons, it retaliated against the law firm for engaging in protected activity (free speech), deprived the law firm of equal protection of the law, and interfered with the rights of the law firm’s clients to counsel of their choosing.

    Three other law firms have brought suits challenging similar Executive action. We can expect decisions in those cases in the coming weeks and months. Each case will undoubtedly be appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and, from there, possibly to the Supreme Court.

    A Larger Number of Law Firms Capitulated

    In the meantime, a larger number of law firms have capitulated and entered into deals with the Admin to avoid adverse Executive action. It is possible – perhaps probable – that each of those law firms faced an existential crisis whereby challenging the President meant losing valuable clients and partners that may mark the end of the law firm. I can scarcely imagine how difficult those decisions must have been. Still, this illustrates how effectively the President can quell speech and interfere with our right to counsel of our choosing, if unchecked.

    We All Need The Law Firms To Keep Fighting

    For the rest of us lawyers, and for the clients who engage us, we owe a debt of gratitude to the four brave law firms risking public scrutiny and worse to protect the rule of law and our Bill of Rights. They are patriots to be sure.