Trump's attacks on lawyers risk undermining the US legal system

The US President's continued attacks on lawyers risk undermining the US legal system. Stephen Clear, a lecturer in constitutional and administrative law, and public procurement, at Bangor University asks... is that the point?

- 

SINCE returning to office, Donald Trump has often called the US legal system into question. He has criticised judges as activists, challenged the role of the courts and insisted some firms do free legal work in support of his administration's causes to make up for working for some of his political opponents.

Meanwhile, Vice-President JD Vance has advised US Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts that he ought to be “checking the excesses” of the lower courts.

And Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, said: “We are living under a judicial tyranny,” after the US Court of International Trade ruled the President didn't have the power to impose international trade tariffs.

Meanwhile, judges are asking for more security to protect them from threats.

Mr Trump's federal investigations and volley of executive orders (presidential directives that don’t require legislative approval by Congress) have also put enormous pressure on law firms. And a recent report shows that both trust in law firms’ independence, and even the rule of law itself, is perceived as under threat in the US.

But what does this mean, and why is it important? The President has taken action against law firms in two prominent ways:

First, by federal investigation. Specifically, letters to a group of 20 law firms from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These demanded information about their diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policies, based on the proposition that any sort of treatment of under-represented groups that appeared preferential to them in policy, or practice, was unequal treatment for other groups, and, consequently, discriminatory.

Second, Mr Trump has passed numerous executive orders introducing punitive measures on specific law firms that previously represented clients opposing his administration, or employed attorneys involved in past investigations against him.