Among Donald Trump’s most recent targets is what he calls “rogue law firms.” At 6pm last Thursday, March 27, he issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at my old law firm, WilmerHale, as one of those “rogue” firms. Approximately 15 hours later, the firm filed a 63-page complaint challenging the EO on multiple constitutional grounds. The EO is an “unprecedented assault on the bedrock principle that one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” and constitutes an “undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes Trump disfavors.” And by 8pm on Friday, March 28, a little over 24 hours after the EO was first issued, a federal district court judge in Washington granted a request for a temporary restraining order, blocking key provisions of the EO from taking effect for now. In doing so, the Court found that “the retaliatory nature of the EO is clear from its face. There is no doubt that it chills speech and legal advocacy and qualifies as a constitutional harm.” The Executive Order The EO and a so-called “Fact Sheet” that went with it recites that the Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm said to have abandoned the legal profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice by engaging in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The specific examples offered in support of this conclusion: The EO asserts that WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Trump’s political opponents — namely the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The EO cites WilmerHale’s “egregious conduct” in “supporting efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “backing the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes,” an apparent reference to the firm’s litigation related pro bono practice and successful challenges to immigration related policies. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “furthering the degradation of the quality of American elections,” an apparent reference to the film’s involvement in challenges to restrictive state voter-identification and voter-registration laws. The EO singles out certain current and former WilmerHale partners, including Robert Mueller, for special criticism by describing Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “one of the most partisan investigations in American history” and having “weaponized the prosecutorial power to suspend the democratic process and distort justice.” The EO then Revokes security clearances held by WilmerHale attorneys; Prohibits the federal government from hiring WilmerHale employees absent a special waiver; Orders a review and the possible termination of federal contracts with entities that do business with the firm; Calls for the withdrawal of government goods or services from the firm; and Calls for restrictions on the ability of WilmerHale employees to enter federal buildings (presumably including federal courthouses) and on their “engaging” with government employees. WilmerHale’s Complaint WilmerHale engaged Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration and a well-known advocate frequently representing conservative causes, to represent the firm in this matter. Assisted by some 15 WilmerHale litigators, the complaint names the Executive Office of the President and 48 other Departments, Commissions, and individual Officers in their official capacity as defendants. A variety of constitutional violations are alleged: The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale and its clients to speak freely, and petition the courts and other government institutions without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials. The separation of powers limits the President’s role to enforcing the law and no statute or constitutional provision empowers him to unilaterally sanction WilmerHale in this manner. The EO flagrantly violates due process by imposing severe consequences without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The EO violates the right to counsel protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts and expenditures. The complaint alleges that WilmerHale has already suffered irreparable damage in the 16 hours since the EO issued. The firm has been vilified by the most powerful person in the country as a “rogue law firm” that has “engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The EO will inevitable cause extensive, lasting damage to WilmerHale’s current and future business prospects. The harm to the firm’s reputation will negatively affect its ability to recruit and retain employees. Further Proceedings Temporary restraining orders constitute emergency relief upon a showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable harm were the temporary relief not entered. A later hearing will be held in order for the judge to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued preventing the government from executing the EO during the continued length of the litigation. Editorial Note: In light of the recent capitulation of several “Big Law” firms to the unreasonable and unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration, WilmerHale is providing a blueprint for resistance as it fights back. More law firms need to be inspired by WilmerHale’s response to Trump’s demand for revenge on his so-called political enemies. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

Tom Timberman was one of the founders of Common Sense for the Eastern Shore. Sadly, he died last month. He will be missed. Common Sense exists because of his leadership and inspiration. His vision was to provide factual and timely commentary and analysis on topics that concern people who live and work on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and to provide factual reporting to help readers shape their own lives. It was important to Tom, as it is today to the editorial board, for Common Sense to help voters to be aware of the effects — personal and local — of decisions made at the federal and state levels. Especially relevant now is this from our Mission Statement: “We seek an America responsive to its citizens and its constitution.” We reprint this tribute from Bill Flook, President of the Democratic Club of Kent County : Many of us were deeply saddened to learn of TomTimberman’s passing last week. It’s hard to believe that such a strong Democratic voice is gone. I worked with Tom for much of the past decade on many good projects promoting our values and activities, including helping on his campaign for County Commissioner, and I’ll particularly miss following his lead as Captain of the Dawn Patrol. Our group met most Saturday mornings for coffee and some good chat, before heading up to Dems HQ to set up the booth there. We’ll miss you, Tom!

 The 2024 presidential election was over swiftly. The Associated Press called it at 5:34 am on Nov. 6, and by 8 am, President-elect Donald Trump was crowing about the “ historic mandate ” given to him by the American people. A “mandate”? Turns out not. Trump jumped to an early lead on election night, but in the following days, his lead diminished as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted. A Baltimore Banner article on Nov. 6 highlighted the “Trump shift” that had occurred in every political subdivision in Maryland, even in counties where Democrat Kamala Harris won. This shift described the increase in Trump support since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 . As of Nov. 6, the biggest Trump shift was an 8.1% increase in his support in red Cecil County, but there were also shifts in the central Maryland counties that are the state’s Democratic strongholds — 4.3% in Montgomery and lesser amounts in other blue counties. Fourteen counties recorded shifts of 4% or more. On the Eastern Shore, every county had a shift over 4.5% except Talbot (2.7%), and the five largest shifts were Shore counties. For the state’s Democrats, it did not look encouraging. But as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted across the state, the Trump shift was reduced everywhere, and as of Nov. 16, disappeared altogether in Garrett (-1.2%) and Charles (-0.1%) counties. The shift dropped below 3% in all Maryland counties. Cecil’s shift became 2.1%. Montgomery’s shift dropped to 2.9%. Talbot’s shift declined to 0.2%, lowest of the Eastern Shore counties. Now, instead of five, only two of the highest five shifts were in Eastern Shore counties. The red bars in the chart below represent the Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 16, in ascending order. The grey bars represent the misleading (and ephemeral) Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 6. Please note the degree to which the Trump shift lessened and disappeared in the 10 days after the election. Another red mirage. But if you had only read the Nov. 6 article and not looked at the updated data, you would have been fooled into thinking Trump support is stronger than it is.

How many times were Common Sense readers told that the 2024 election would be the most important ever? Whoever the winner, people knew the results would not unite the country but further divide it. One place of divisive conflict on the Eastern Shore, indeed almost everywhere, is the local school system. Two extreme right-wing organizations targeting school board control have made their presence known on the Eastern Shore. Moms for Liberty , according to its website , wants “to empower parents to defend parental rights at all levels of government.” In the recent election, Moms for Liberty endorsed at least two Cecil Co. Board of Education candidates. One of them, Sam J. Davis (who got 44% of the total vote ), lost his race to Diane Racine Heath (55%). Another Moms for Liberty candidate, Tierney Farlan Davis, Sr. (57%), defeated Dita Watson (42%). Both defeated candidates were endorsed by the Cecil County Classroom Teachers Association . A second active conservative organization is the 1776 Project PAC . This PAC’s mission statement declares that it “is committed to reigniting the spark and spirit of that revolution by reforming school boards across America. Since progressive-led efforts to lockdown schools during the covid epidemic, test scores have declined, parents and students are increasingly worried about violence both in and out of the classroom, while politicians and activists push their own ideology.” Of the eight Eastern Shore school board candidates the 1776 PAC supported, three were unopposed. The five competitive races were won by 1776 PAC candidates; the average margin of victory was about 12%. The Talbot Co. candidate Ann O’Connor wrote a piece for the Delmarva Times and the Easton Gazette denying that her candidacy had received “endorsements from Moms for Liberty or any other group.” On the other hand, on X , we read that the 1776 PAC gave “huge congratulations to Ann O’Connor . . . for being elected to the now-conservative Talbot County Board of Education!” One might wonder whether or not any group gave her an endorsement. In a late October, the Washington Post ran a long story about the significant partisan cash flowing into Maryland school board races. In theory, Maryland school board elections are nonpartisan, because state law prohibits party labels on school board ballots. On the other hand, according to the Post, the 1776 PAC “has spent a total of $75,409.58 on 13 Maryland school board candidates across Cecil, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, Calvert, Somerset and St. Mary’s counties.” That sum and the other money spent on school board candidates does not indicate the strength of passion in the candidates and their supporters. Our governments are obligated to allow, if not to support, all citizens in their exercise of their First Amendment rights. Assuming freedom of speech applies to students and teachers , the last thing public school administrations should do is wrongly to restrict material that teachers teach and students learn. But when students learn that school systems inappropriately control what is taught, they will be at best confused. On one hand, they are taught they have free speech; on the other hand, they learn that in school, they don’t. Have we just been through American history’s most important election? If these school board elections diminish our Constitutional rights, the sad answer is yes. Jim Block taught English at Northfield Mount Hermon, a boarding school in Western Mass. He coached cross-country and advised the newspaper and the debate society there. He taught at Marlborough College in England and Robert College in Istanbul. He and his wife retired to Chestertown, Md., in 2014. 

It’s probably too early for a real analysis of why the Harris/Walz ticket was defeated in this year’s presidential election, although there are plenty of people taking a crack at it. For a couple of interesting examples, take a look at Heather Cox Richardson’s Nov. 6 column , or David Brooks in the New York Times. Important factors certainly included sexism and racism. Many Americans still aren’t ready to accept a woman leader — especially a Black woman. And I spoke to one local person who said that many Black men he knew were wary of voting for Harris because she had been a prosecutor, putting other Black men and minorities behind bars. Whether or not that was a factor, Harris’s share of the Black vote was some 10% lower than Biden’s. But the most significant factor was probably voter turnout. According to a Nov. 11 New York Times story , Democratic turnout was significantly lower than in 2020. This helped produce a narrow majority in the popular vote for the Republican ticket. Trump’s total nationwide was about 74 million votes, roughly the same as he received in 2020. Harris, on the other hand, was at 70 million — roughly 11 million less than President Biden’s 2020 total. If those voters had come out again and voted mostly Democratic, Harris would have some 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million, giving her the popular vote. Depending on where the voters lived, that could have produced a very different result in the Electoral College and the election itself. Though the Electoral College totals imply otherwise, this was really a close election. Incidentally, a reaction against incumbents may be another significant factor, and a global rather than a U.S. phenomenon. An article in the Financial Times notes that every incumbent party — on both ends of the political spectrum — in developed countries lost significant vote share in an election this year — an astonishing turn of events. Here on the Eastern Shore, nobody should be surprised that the majority of the voting public went for the Republicans. The area, after all, is predominantly rural and conservative, with a few blue enclaves such as Easton and Chestertown. While town-by-town results on the Shore are not yet available, in Talbot County, in which Easton is the largest town, Trump won by some 500 votes. Queen Anne’s gave Trump the win by about 9,000 votes. Local elections were not on the ballot in 2024, but local officials on the Shore — mayors, sheriffs, state’s attorneys, county commissioners, delegates to the General Assembly, etc. — largely reflect that Republican dominance. And day-to-day life is more directly affected by these people in all communities than by anyone in Washington. Still, what happens on the national level will have its effect on all of us. The architects and supporters of Project 2025 are going to be part of the new Trump administration, and he has appointed some of the project’s supporters already. Those appointees are probably going to be quite adamant in pushing through their agenda. Even if they can’t accomplish everything, some of the proposed plans ought to be cause for concern, above all the weakening of women’s rights, especially reproductive freedom. And with the Senate, possibly the House, and the Supreme Court effectively on the same page as the administration, the constitutional checks and balances will be severely weakened. If, as he said he would, Trump imposes heavy tariffs on imports, almost every economist predicts that consumer prices will rise, thus making it harder to control inflation. If a mass deportation of immigrants gets underway, many jobs will go unfilled, particularly in construction and food service. This will further hurt the economy. It’s possible that pressure to fill those jobs could raise wages. If RFK Jr. brings his anti-vaccine beliefs to the health department, another pandemic — a new covid strain, or just the regular flu — could kill millions. If Elon Musk starts cutting back what he perceives as governmental waste, programs benefitting local communities are likely to suffer, again removing dollars from local and state economies. The foreign policy implications of some of Trump’s statements could be significant. He has threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO. This may be unlikely, but that political stance may encourage current and would-be aggressors in Europe and the Middle East. And Trump has said he will end the war in Ukraine in one day. Does he really have that much influence on Putin? Or does Putin have that much influence on Trump? Time will tell. Looking down the road, one also has to consider Trump’s health. Born in June 1946, he will be 82 by the end of his term. What if he becomes incapacitated, physically or mentally? A stroke, a heart attack, or just the rigors of old age in a stressful office — all are possible. Would Vice President-elect Vance, a former venture capitalist in the technology sector, continue Trump’s policies, or would he have ideas of his own? At one time, Vance criticized many of Trump’s positions. If Trump is no longer in charge, could there be a period of infighting as various factions within the party and administration assert their own priorities? Any of that could have significant effects, and it’s not unlikely, given Trump’s age. So it looks as if we are about to live in “interesting times.” Some people are talking about leaving the country, while others are still trying to understand what just happened. Many are already looking forward and starting to concentrate on the 2026 midterms, when Republicans could consolidate their gains or Democrats could make a comeback. May we all get through these times to the point where we can tell a younger generation the kinds of stories our elders told us about the Great Depression or the Civil Rights movement — hopefully, with something resembling a happy ending. Peter Heck is a Chestertown-based writer and editor, who spent 10 years at the Kent County News and three more with the Chestertown Spy. He is the author of 10 novels and co-author of four plays, a book reviewer for Asimov’s and Kirkus Reviews, and an incorrigible guitarist.