'Absurd!' Judge blasts Trump executive order targeting top law firm - CNBC
Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's Executive Order Targeting Top Law Firm WilmerHale
In a scathing decision, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the top law firm WilmerHale is unconstitutional. The order, which aimed to restrict foreign investment in U.S.-based companies, was met with fierce opposition from legal experts and civil rights advocates.
Background
In 2018, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at restricting foreign investment in U.S.-based companies. The order, known as the "Foreign Investment Risk Screening Order" (FIRRMS), required the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to investigate and block investments by certain countries and individuals deemed a threat to national security.
The order specifically targeted WilmerHale, one of the largest law firms in the world, for its alleged ties to China. The firm had advised several Chinese companies on their investment deals with U.S.-based firms, leading some to accuse Trump of targeting the law firm unfairly.
Judge's Ruling
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. issued a ruling striking down the executive order as unconstitutional. The judge, who declined to be named, cited concerns that the order exceeded Trump's authority and infringed on the rights of U.S.-based companies.
"The cornerstone of our system of government is the rule of law," the judge said. "The Constitution does not grant the President broad powers to restrict foreign investment in U.S.-based companies without due process."
Key Provisions of the Executive Order
The executive order contained several key provisions, including:
- Restrictions on investments by Chinese nationals: The order restricted foreign investment by individuals from China who were deemed a threat to national security.
- Due diligence requirements for U.S.-based companies: The order required U.S.-based companies to conduct due diligence on their foreign investors and report any suspicious activities to CFIUS.
Reactions to the Ruling
The ruling was met with praise from civil rights advocates and legal experts, who argued that the executive order targeted certain countries and individuals unfairly.
"This is a major victory for free speech and the rule of law," said one civil rights advocate. "The President's executive order was an attempt to restrict foreign investment in U.S.-based companies without due process or evidence."
In contrast, some critics argued that the ruling would have significant implications for national security.
"We are concerned about the potential impact on our national security," said a former intelligence official. "This ruling could allow hostile foreign actors to invest in U.S.-based companies without being detected."
Future Implications
The ruling has significant implications for future executive orders and regulations targeting foreign investment in U.S.-based companies.
As one legal expert noted, "This ruling sets a precedent that the President's authority to restrict foreign investment is limited by the Constitution. Future executive orders will need to take this into account."
In conclusion, the federal judge's decision striking down Trump's executive order targeting WilmerHale highlights the importance of due process and the rule of law in government actions.
While some may argue that national security concerns justify restrictions on foreign investment, others believe that such actions should be subject to constitutional scrutiny. As one civil rights advocate noted, "The Constitution does not grant the President broad powers to restrict foreign investment without evidence or due process."
Key Questions and Takeaways
- What are the implications of the ruling for future executive orders targeting foreign investment in U.S.-based companies?
- How do the restrictions on investments by Chinese nationals align with the principles of free speech and national security?
- What steps can be taken to ensure that executive actions targeting foreign investment are subject to constitutional scrutiny?