‘The quantum of proof is nonexistent’: Judge tears into speechless DOJ lawyer over Trump’s attacks on law firms

An lawyer with the Department of Justice faced pugnacious questions and had a unsmooth slog wide successful a Washington, D.C., courtroom connected Thursday arsenic helium continued his ongoing, one-man efforts to support the Trump administration’s checkered crusade against Big Law.

Richard Lawson is the lone lawyer the authorities has decided to usage during in-court efforts to propulsion backmost against lawsuits filed by instrumentality firms similar Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale.

At 1 constituent during a two-hour motions proceeding earlier U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan implicit the Trump administration’s efforts to defang Susman Godfrey LLP, the precocious minted lawman subordinate lawyer wide was rendered rather virtually speechless.

And it happened twice.

Love existent crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life transgression stories delivered close to your inbox.

As the tribunal unraveled respective issues successful President Donald Trump‘s April 9 executive order, cardinal sticking points during the proceeding acrophobic an allegation that the Los Angeles-based instrumentality steadfast “engages successful unlawful discrimination, including favoritism connected the ground of race.”

During his clip astatine the dais, Susman Godfrey’s pb attorney, Donald Verrilli, said the president’s findings were “completely baseless.”

The Joe Biden-appointed judge, for her part, repeatedly tried to ferret retired what, exactly, the authorities had based the favoritism allegation on.

And there, Lawson was admittedly lacking.

“I don’t person the hard information connected hiring,” the DOJ lawyer said astatine 1 point.

Instead, Lawson tried to support Trump’s bid by suggesting the tribunal displacement to a much nebulous but much holistic enquiry into “the quantum of impervious that indispensable exist” for the enforcement to find a imaginable policy. To that end, Lawson argued, the reply is: “it’s low.”

In different words, the authorities lawyer was trying to determination the statement distant from specifics and into a model wherever the tribunal would beryllium amenable to giving the president wide discretion — even, and possibly especially, if the specifics are hard to travel by. Lawson suggested the tribunal could motion disconnected connected a argumentation wherever the president acts based connected his subjective knowing of the instrumentality firm’s commitments to diversity.

“There has to beryllium immoderate level of discretion afforded to the executive,” helium said.

But the justice was not having it.

“I don’t cognize how, if you’re relying connected a legally erroneous statement, you’re allowed to workout that discretion,” AliKhan replied.

The sole connection successful Trump’s bid supporting the allegation is: “For example, Susman administers a programme wherever it offers fiscal awards and employment opportunities lone to ‘students of color.'”

That line, it turns out, is simply a notation to the Susman Godfrey Prize, which the instrumentality steadfast describes arsenic “[a]n grant awarded annually to up to 20 students of colour who are finishing their archetypal oregon 2nd twelvemonth astatine an eligible instrumentality school” and “part of the firm’s ongoing committedness to observe and beforehand diverseness among civilian proceedings lawyers.”

The authorities lawyer was pressed to concede that the prize is not unlawful favoritism successful employment nether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, contempt erstwhile connection successful tribunal filings highlighting the prize and suggesting it is unlawfully discriminatory.

“It doesn’t look similar thing you person alleged successful conception 1 constitutes unlawful radical discrimination,” AliKhan said.

The justice noted that the connection regarding the prize is the lone illustration of radical favoritism that Trump’s bid contains — and that the enactment comes instantly aft the allegation.

“I conscionable don’t cognize however you quadrate the circle,” AliKhan said.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Is the president not telling the truth?’: Federal justice repeatedly rattles DOJ lawyer with uncomfortable questions during Alien Enemies Act hearing

While Lawson tried to determination connected to a different-but-related argument, the justice pushed him to relationship for the enactment astir the prize.

“So, the lone illustration successful the enforcement bid that has to bash with radical favoritism isn’t really an example?” the justice asked, waiting a bushed earlier demanding an answer: “Yes oregon no?”

A agelong soundlessness followed.

“Yes oregon no, sir,” the justice pressed.

More silence.

While the authorities lawyer did not person an answer, helium yet spoke up to accidental arsenic much.

“I would similar to deliberation astir that, your honor,” Lawson said.

AliKhan replied: “I would similar an reply earlier you permission my courtroom.”

The DOJ lawyer past returned to the prize, initially noncommittal connected whether knock-on effects of the prize mightiness implicate Title VII but yet conceding the constituent aft immoderate back-and-forth.

“So it seems similar the quantum of impervious is nonexistent,” the justice said, turning the attorney’s ain verbiage backmost connected him.

In the end, Lawson agreed determination was nary enactment for the radical favoritism assertion successful Trump’s order. Still, helium insisted that immoderate discretion should beryllium fixed to the enforcement by the courts.

“I recognize that, I conscionable don’t recognize wherefore I’m expected to defer to thing I can’t read,” AliKhan said.

Another large root of struggle came with the government’s different justification for the assertion that the instrumentality steadfast illegally discriminates.

The DOJ lawyer, moving distant from the substance of Trump’s order, said the existent contented present is Susman Godfrey’s committedness to “racial balancing.” He past cited a information of the instrumentality firm’s website astir opportunities for “underrepresented” communities. Such language, Lawson said, assumes an “adequate representation” based connected contention oregon ethnicity and is “quite suspect” successful airy of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring race-based affirmative enactment successful assemblage admissions.

Here, however, the justice was audibly aggrieved.

AliKhan launched into a lengthy bid of questions and hypotheticals astir women successful law. The justice noted that women are the bulk of instrumentality schoolhouse graduates successful the state but lone marque up a important number of partners astatine instrumentality firms.

Pointedly, she asked whether connection astir this authorities of affairs, wherever women are statistically underrepresented, would besides tally afoul of the Trump administration. The authorities lawyer said statements unsocial would not beryllium a problem.

“The interest would beryllium existent hiring,” Lawson said. “Actual hiring decisions based connected hiring to deed a representative, nevertheless determined, number.”

As the treatment continued for respective much minutes, the tenor and fig of questions from the justice connected the contented of practice suggested she viewed the government’s presumption unfavorably.

On rebuttal, Susman Godfrey’s lawyer sought to ridicule the Trump administration’s admitted grounds arsenic “a website connection that uses the connection ‘underrepresented’ and a pledge to sex parity — that’s it.”

Then, Verrilli took a crook astatine rephrasing Lawson’s verbiage.

“The authorities whitethorn person immoderate discretion successful presumption of contracting, but they don’t person discretion to interruption the Constitution,” helium said.

AliKhan ended the proceeding by promising she would regularisation connected some the parties’ motions for summary judgement and the plaintiff’s petition for a preliminary injunction arsenic soon arsenic she could.