So what are these four lawsuits where judges ruled that #Trump can't do that and now the #DOJ is saying "Yes, he can, you stupid, stupid, judges?"

① Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 25-cv-00716, decided 2025-05-02) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69725919/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/

> Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with “tolerance, not coercion.” .... The Supreme Court has long made clear that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics . . . or other matters of opinion.” .... Simply put, government officials “cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” ....

> That, however, is exactly what is happening here. For this reason, and those explained more fully below, #ExecutiveOrder 14230 is unconstitutional, and the findings and instructions to Executive Branch agencies issued in its Sections 1 through 5 cannot be allowed to stand.

— Judge #BerylHowell, Docket 185

② Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 25-cv-00916, decided 2025-05-23) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807126/jenner-block-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/

> This case arises from one of a series of executive orders targeting law firms that, in one way or another, did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy. Like the others in the series, this order — which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block — makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the #Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work — and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward — violates the First Amendment's central command that government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” .... More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy. This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the #SeparationOfPowers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.

...

> #ExecutiveOrder 14246 violates settled #FirstAmendment law and its operation must be enjoined in full.

— Judge #JohnBates, Docket 138