On Wednesday, a judge angered the efforts of the Ministry of Justice to keep it away from considering the request of the Perkins Coie to stop Trump’s order, which could effectively paralyze the company’s ability to represent its customers.
in BlatantAl -Qadi said, Bereil a. Hawal, the attempt to launch it from the case threatened to “destroy the safety of the federal judicial system.” She added that he indicated efforts to blame any losses that the administration may eventually face in its work as a judge instead of its weak legal arguments.
Judge Hawul, who heads the Federal Court in Washington, wrote: “Each party deserves a fair and fair listening session to determine what material facts are and how the law applies to these facts.” “However, this basic promise does not give any party – not even those who have the authority and status of the President of the United States or a federal agency – to demand commitment to their own version of the facts and preferred legal results.”
When Perkins Koy Lay a lawsuit against the administration on March 11He argued that the executive order of Mr. Trump, whose lawyer was stripped of security permits and prohibiting them from entering the federal buildings was unconstitutional.
The thing that targeted Perkins -Koy was one part of the wider effort by the administration to pursue white shoes that it considers enemies. Mr. Trump also issued similar executive orders against Paul Weiss, Covengton, Burling, Jenner and Block.
Last week, in a proposal, he was martyred in many cases that Judge Hawul dealt with, accused by the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice of being not valid to head the Perkins Koi case because they “have repeatedly and repeated prejudice against the president.”
The transition to the exclusion of Judge Huil was a symbol of the wider management attacks on the federal judiciary, which in recent weeks has repeatedly prompted Mr. Trump’s repeated efforts to expand his powers through a set of executive measures.
The administration has sought the same week to remove one of its colleagues at the Federal Provincial Court in Washington, James E.
It also called on the administration and its allies to the judges who ruled against Mr. Trump to remove him, which led to Nader Public reprimand this month from John J. J. Roberts Junior.
In rejecting the suggestion of non -eligibility, Judge Huil, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, presented in defense of her decisions related to Mr. Trump, noting that she decided in favor of the administration in some cases where the facts are required.
“Innuendo” also rejected the idea that it was biased against the president because it ruled against him on previous cases related to the investigations of the Grand jury. These investigations were charged by the former Special Adviser, Jacques Smith, of trying to cancel the 2020 elections and illegally adhering to the documents classified after leaving the White House in 2021.
Judge Hawal also rejected the idea that she was unfair to Mr. Trump when she retracted his full giving to the paint of all 1,600 people accused in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
She sought to turn the tables on the administration, accusing her of blame her for doing her job.
She wrote: “Although this old saying is common, and the excessive tactics of use, it calls for the mind by the defendants pending the lack of eligibility of this court.” “When you cannot attack the message, attack the Messenger.”
