President Trump Directs AG to Combat 'Frivolous' Lawsuits

In a recent move, President Donald Trump has instructed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue penalties against law practices that file 'frivolous' lawsuits against the government. Trump's directive references civil procedure rules that seek to prevent legal filings meant to 'harass' or 'cause unnecessary delay.' Trump claims that too many attorneys disregard these rules, especially when litigating against the federal government or engaging in baseless political attacks. The Trump administration has faced over 100 lawsuits since taking office, with the courts imposing 15 injunctions in the last month alone. These legal challenges have included high-profile cases regarding executive orders on birthright citizenship and deportation actions. Trump's legal team has even asked the Supreme Court to potentially limit lower courts' authority to issue injunctions during ongoing litigation. Trump is asking Bondi to review litigation against the government over the past eight years, which spans his first presidential term. Trump suggests harsh penalties, such as reassessing security clearances and canceling government contracts with certain law firms. The presidential memo particularly singles out Marc Elias's law firm for its role in the creation of the disputed Steele dossier, used in investigations against Trump during his first campaign. This initiative has garnered backlash from law firms and nonprofit organizations, including the ACLU and Democracy Forward. Critics argue that Trump's actions represent an attack on the judiciary and the rule of law, aiming to deter legal challenges against his administration. Marc Elias, for instance, stated that Trump is attempting to undermine constitutional principles and intimidate legal professionals who oppose his government. The initiative could lead to a wide-ranging impact on legal accountability, striking a balance between cutting down on baseless lawsuits and ensuring that legitimate legal challenges can proceed without executive interference. The ensuing battle between the administration and legal advocacy could have significant ramifications for the legal landscape and judicial independence.