Document Type
News Article
Publication Date
5-15-2025
Abstract
“Sentence first, verdict afterwards,” the Queen in Alice in Wonderland insisted at the trial of the Knave of Hearts for stealing the Queen’s tarts. Such an upsidedown process obviously leaves quite a bit to be desired, but compared to the process provided by President Donald Trump’s executive orders announcing and inflicting debilitating penalties on particular law firms, it’s not all that bad. After all, the Knave of Hearts, unlike the targeted firms, at least got some sort of trial before punishment was announced.
Also, it’s one thing to be punished for stealing the Queen’s tarts—something that any law-abiding citizen of the kingdom would surely know violates the law. It’s quite another thing to be punished for the kind of activities that the executive orders describe as “harmful” or “dishonest” or “partisan” and cite as justification for targeting the firms.
Some firms were targeted for having represented one or more clients in legal challenges that the President dislikes, such as challenges to restrictive voter identification requirements or limitations on transgender rights. Others incurred the President’s wrath by having had some involvement, however tangential, in one of the various prosecutions against then-ex-President Trump. One firm was singled out, for example, for hiring an attorney who previously, as a prosecutor in one such prosecution, had conducted himself in a way that the President, according to the order, deems “unethical.”
Recommended Citation
Gary J. Simson, The President’s Orders Targeting Law Firms as Unconstitutional Bills of Attainder – Damning Lessons from the Past, Verdict: Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia (May 15, 2025).
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, President/Executive Department Commons