AG Bondi reprimands judge while complying with his order in law firm case
Pam Bondi, who was President Donald Trump's pick to be attorney general, arrives before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her nomination hearing Jan. 15. (Photo by Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)
Attorney General Pam Bondi this week complied with a federal judge’s orders in a court case—and made clear she didn’t like doing it.
Bondi expressed her distaste in a memorandum sent to the heads of executive branch agencies and departments after a judge blocked much of President Donald Trump’s executive order punishing the law firm Jenner & Block. Trump had sanctioned that firm and others, accusing them of wrongdoing and ordering that they lose government contracts and access to government buildings.
The judge required Bondi and Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to notify other federal agencies that they must refrain from implementing parts of Trump’s order.
In her memo, which was submitted in court Tuesday and also attributed to Vought, Bondi bluntly signaled she was begrudgingly following a court order. Bondi also referred to what she called “an unelected” judge who “invaded the policy-making and free speech prerogatives of the executive branch” by making demands beyond his jurisdiction.
“Local district judges lack this authority, and the Supreme Court should swiftly constrain these judges’ blatant overstepping of the judicial power,” Bondi wrote in the notice.
The Trump administration has faced about 160 lawsuits challenging its actions so far, and judges in many cases have halted or partially blocked these activities. Bondi has echoed Trump in railing against these judges, arguing that they have overstepped and infringed on his power.
When a federal judge last month temporarily blocked Trump’s invocation of the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members and bypass traditional immigration proceedings, Bondi accused the court of “trying to protect terrorists over American citizens.”
“The judge had no business, no power to do what he did,” Bondi told Fox News shortly after the ruling. “This has been a pattern with these liberal judges.”
In this latest case, Bondi was addressing an order signed by District Judge John D. Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush.
Trump has issued several executive orders punishing prominent law firms that have either challenged his policies or had connections to his perceived political opponents. His orders said firms would lose government contracts and that their employees would be barred from government buildings or meeting with government employees, sanctions firms have described as potentially catastrophic for their businesses.
His orders have shaken the legal community. Some firms have cut deals with Trump to avoid punishments, while three others—including Jenner & Block—sued to fight his orders. The three firms that sued to fight Trump’s orders found initial success, with judges at least temporarily blocking many of his penalties.
Jenner & Block filed its lawsuit on March 28. Bates held a hearing that day and granted the firm’s request to temporarily block much of Trump’s order.
In his order, Bates told Trump administration officials to direct employees and contractors to disregard the parts of Trump’s order that he had frozen. Bates also directed Bondi and Vought to issue guidance to agencies telling them to suspend implementing parts of Trump’s order, then submit a status report by March 31 describing the steps they had taken to comply with his directives.
On March 31, the Justice Department said it had been working with officials to develop notices for complying with the injunctions.
In court filings that day, the Justice Department said it notified the defendants listed in Jenner & Block’s lawsuit but still had to notify agencies not listed in the suit. A Justice Department lawyer wrote in one filing that the agency had encountered “logistical issues involved with issuing the additional notifications and anticipates being able to issue the notification in short order.” No other status reports followed for more than a week.
Then, on Tuesday, Jenner & Block filed its motion seeking to permanently block Trump’s executive order targeting the firm. In a footnote, Jenner & Block said that its attorneys had conferred with the Justice Department multiple times but did not receive “a definitive date” when the additional notice would be sent out.
The same day, the Justice Department submitted its first status report since March 31, confirming that the guidance had indeed been sent out and including the memorandum Bondi wrote, which criticized Bates’s order.
The status report did not specify when the notice was sent out, nor does it explain what the logistical issues were. The Justice Department did not respond to a message seeking comment Wednesday.
In a separate filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department also argued for dismissing Jenner & Block’s lawsuit. The department said Trump’s order is lawful and that his actions are all within the bounds of his power.
The department made similar arguments in response to the lawsuits brought by two other firms—Perkins Coie and WilmerHale—that are both also challenging Trump’s orders sanctioning them.
Perry Stein contributed to this report.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
