Why did ABC take Jimmy Kimmel off the air? Apparently, this is why:
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/b...
Livio De La Cruz
@livio.me
386 followers 1.6K following 1.2K posts
Interim Co-Executive Director of Legal Services at communities-rise.org where we help nonprofits and small businesses thrive. Activist, former indie game developer, dad. Active in my local UCC congregation. Seattle, WA, USA. All opinions are my own
![1. Plaintiff Contests Purported Findings in EO 14230’s Section 1.
The government blithely describes the statements set out in Section 1 of EO 14230 as “not seriously contested” and “matters of public record.” Gov’t’s Mem. at 7. This description is inaccurate. Plaintiff “vigorously contests” Section 1’s allegations of racial discrimination throughout the complaint. Pl.’s Opp’n at 2; see, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 45 (stating that Plaintiff “does not, and did not” racially discriminate against its employees); id. ¶ 46 (contesting Section 1’s “false premise” that “promoting diversity in the legal profession” equates to illegal discrimination); id. ¶ 51 (calling Section 1’s allegations “false and disparaging”).
Moreover, to the extent that certain factual matters alluded to in Section 1 are not contested, see, e.g., Pl.’s SMF ¶ 83 (acknowledging three former Perkins Coie lawyers were sanctioned, in 2021, a total of $8,700 resulting from a duplicative motion filed in a voting rights appeal), plaintiff does challenge the use of these statements as a basis for the government actions directed in EO 14230, see, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 8 (challenging the Order as “not executive in nature,” id. ¶ 2, and stating that “[t]he principal claims made by the Order have already been raised in the proper forum and resolved by the branch of government with constitutional authority to do so,” id. ¶ 8); Pl.’s Mem. at 35 (arguing the Order impermissibly invades the judicial function, “given that federal courts already have adjudicated many of the President’s grievances referenced in the Order”).
The thrust of the government’s inaccurate characterization of Section 1’s statements as “undisputed” appears to be that these statements are immune from, or would survive, any factual or legal claims asserted by plaintiff, and therefore Section 1 must withstand any challenge lodged...](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:n72ginmutkhr5c4hmhrwoxfx/bafkreiagglmnqa4bkkxher6ny5mrqfqe3azqrew2vl65cfbn2ypghakmzu)
![UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PERKINS COIE LLP, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-716 (BAH)
Judge Beryl A. Howell
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, HENRY VI, PART 2, act 4, sc. 2, l. 75. When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, see id. l. 74, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding “[a]way with him,” referring to an educated clerk, who “can make obligations and write court hand,” id. l. 90, 106. Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power. See Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 371 n.24 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (explaining the import of the same Shakespearean statement to be “that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government”).
The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era. In 1770, John Adams made the singularly unpopular decision to represent eight British soldiers charged with murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre and “claimed later to have suffered the...](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:n72ginmutkhr5c4hmhrwoxfx/bafkreief4ksmwhuvvxwb7g35bzb37drsy65dy2oiynb2tauvjry4wgdgtq)
![The government argues that all plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for multiple alleged deficiencies, which are discussed in the government’s supporting memorandum by reviewing EO 14230 on a section-by-section basis. None of these arguments are persuasive. While the government organizes its briefing in a manner designed to mount a forceful defense of each section of the Order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) guides the assertion of defenses to “claim[s] for relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (emphasis supplied), as plaintiff correctly points out. Thus, the normal form of analysis of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) requires review of each claim asserted to assess its sufficiency, but this is not how the government presented its arguments. To reduce redundancy, the sufficiency of each claim is considered as part of assessing whether plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the claims, in Part III.B. The general arguments raised by the government's motion to dismiss—which arguments are only loosely tied, if at all, to specific procedural rules to test the sufficiency of the claims as pleaded—are addressed in this Part.
Footnote: Neither the government’s motion to dismiss itself or its proposed order cites to any procedural rule as the basis for the requested dismissal, and the government’s memorandum in support likewise contains no clear statement of the procedural rules relied upon as to each claim, leaving the legal bases for the motion to the Court to discern from vague headings used in the government’s memorandum or to tease out of the text of the same document, despite the critical differences in applicable standards depending on which rule is relied upon. Plaintiff requests denial of any intended government cross-motion for summary judgment “for failure to comply with [D.D.C.] Local Rule 7(h)(1). This basis for denial urged by plaintiff need not be resolved since the pending motions are resolved on alternative grounds.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:n72ginmutkhr5c4hmhrwoxfx/bafkreicyoj2ht7qpl4ciis7kxf2e5znszjxwietqfww3siz6nc6fxqvz4m)
