The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"On Not Signing Most Open Group Letters by My Fellow Legal Academics"
An excerpt from yesterday's post by my UCLA colleague Stephen Bainbridge:
Last week, I signed an open letter to the Delaware legislature by a group of corporate law academics addressing aspects of Delaware SB 21, which was then pending before the Delaware House.
This week, as you may have seen, 80 out of the ~120 Harvard law school faculty signed a group letter protesting certain Trump administration actions--especially those targeting law firms--as being detrimental to the rule of law.
Predictably, where Harvard leads, the rest of legal education follows. I hear rumors of similar letters in the works at some law schools or among faculty at multiple law schools.
I have been asked to sign some. But I'm not going to do so.
First, however, let me emphasize that I share the signer's concerns about the way the Trump administration is punishing law firms of which the administration disapproves. The use of unilateral executive action is inconsistent with the rule of law. This is true even though I think some of what some of the law firms did to incur Trump's wrath was seriously problematic. In particular, Perkins Coie played a major role in commissioning and disseminating the Steele dossier, which has been widely and effectively discredited. In effect, they committed election fraud. Having said that, I believe Trump should have had the Justice Department investigate to determine if laws were broken rather than unilaterally imposing punishment by executive decree. If the Justice Department concluded laws were broken by the firm, then prosecute the firm. That is how the system is supposed to work. That is how the rule of law is supposed to work.
But I have three reasons for not signing a version of the Harvard letter….
Go to the post for those reasons.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"I believe Trump should have had the Justice Department investigate to determine if laws were broken rather than unilaterally imposing punishment by executive decree. If the Justice Department concluded laws were broken by the firm, then prosecute the firm."
This would result in the exact same situation as we are in now, i.e., the usual suspects (David Post, Ilya Somin, etc.) bemoaning it and calling the administration fascists, except that it would take much longer. There's no need to waste time. The law firms' actions were done in broad daylight. Punish them hard and without delay. As I have said elsewhere, it needs to hurt.
The difference, of course, is that
1. The usual suspect would be wrong instead of being correct, and
2. The consequences would be real and hold up, rather than being restrained and enjoined.
One of the things the Trump E.O. claims to be punishing the law firm for is "supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote." This conduct is not against any federal criminal law, so there's no reason to have the DOJ waste time "investigating."
And before any of the usual dumbasses pipe up, criminal conduct is not the only set of actions that society (and its elected leaders) should revile and sanction. Not even close.
Who is this Kleppe guy? Does he need to join my list of muted commenters, like the Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland and Dr. Ed 2?
Hey everyone, look how virtuous y81 is! Where's Sarcastr0 to give him his Good Boy Points?
Praise him!
Did Reverend Kirkland exile himself? I haven't seen him for some time. If he did, did he bid adieu and give a reason for doing so?
I actually miss ol' Artie. He was a staple here (a very crazy staple) for many years. I think he red-pilled a number of people by being absolutely honest about how he really felt.
He was more thoughtful and less predictable before he got that divinity degree.
His sad trajectory is certainly representative of some issues among the commentariat.
It wasn't really all that much of a trajectory. He went from "troll" to "aggrieved troll" over many, many years.
Yes, presumably that’s why Prof. Bainbridge referred to “some of what some of the law firms did to incur Trump's wrath”. Things like supporting positions that Trump disagrees with shouldn’t be punished at all.
Helping illegals vote shouldn't be punished? Wow. I knew you were a Far-Left whacko, but this is just crazy.
Noncitizens=\=illegals, and there’s a long history of them being granted voting rights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage_in_the_United_States
Kleppe’s only problem with cancel culture was when it targeted people he liked.
“and its elected leaders) should revile and sanction”
There slips the “libertarian” mask.
Why do you keep calling me a libertarian? I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a libertarian.
This is, after all, an “often libertarian” site…
Presumably that refers to the conspirators and not those of us in the cheap seats. I certainly wasn't consulted before they hung that slogan!
Can't speak for Kleppe, but I've admitted I'd changed my mind on "cancel culture":
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/03/nate-silvers-free-speech-is-in-trouble/?comments=true#comment-10303111
re: "There slips the 'libertarian' mask." (in response to: "[C]riminal conduct is not the only set of actions that society (and its elected leaders) should revile and sanction.")
Let's take up "revile" first. In the wake of Hamas’s 10/7/23 attack on Israel (or, rather, in the wake of various student groups’ (quite positive!) reaction to it), Alan Dershowitz published a piece calling on law firms not to hire openly-pro-genocide law-students. One of the responses accused him of “preventing free speech.” During an appearance on the Dennis Prager Show, Mr. Dershowitz disputed this, saying: “The First Amendment [i.e., freedom of speech] goes both ways.”
Now let's take a look at the "sanction." The executive order Kleppe is defending involves barring certain entities from federal contracts. So, no one is being executed, imprisoned, fined, dispossessed, or disbarred. Is it ever morally acceptable to ban an entity from federal contracts based on non-criminal conduct? You tell me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8802
Note that, at the time, "ethnic or racial discrimination" was not illegal.
Now, are "efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote" equally worthy of being reviled / sanctioned (in this manner)? I'd say so. People who do so intentionally seek to dilute U.S. citizens' voting rights. As a Republican congressman recently put it: "Non-citizen voting dilutes the value of citizenship, normalizes illegal immigration, and invites foreign nationals to interfere in U.S. elections. The idea of non-citizen voting is absurd."
Did you overlook the difference between "investigate" and "punish"?
Prof. Baude offers some thoughts on the Divided Argument Substack:
https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-semiotics-of-group-letters
If Bainbridge doesnt want to sign it good for him. If the others do fine, it is a free world (for the moment). I am not sure of one of his main concern though "What signal does it send to students "who support the current President and the legal policies of his administration. What exactly are [they] supposed to think when an overwhelming supermajority of the faculty, although purporting to speak “in their individual capacities,” jointly condemn those policies?" ...... er I think if you are a Trump supporter in Harvard you already know you are in a distinct minority.
So you think they need a safe space?
Not if they're being treated fairly by the professors. But we all know how Leftists operate, so they won't be. In a classroom nor in a courtroom.
These letters are performance art.
Trump supporters see them and think, "Good he is pissing off the right people, college professors."
That speaks poorly of them, no? I mean, imagine the mindset of championing something just because it makes people you disagree with upset.
Are you suggesting that Trumpists are motivated by pwning the Libs, rather than by serious policy concerns? Surely not?
https://bsky.app/profile/cwebbonline.com/post/3lloctu7l422q
We, the undersigned, oppose signing open letters.
Signed,
Professor Haywood Jablome
Professor I. P. Freely
Professor Amanda Huginkiss
Professor Jacques Orff
Professor N. U. Endo
Professor Louis C. Fer
Professor Hugh S. Johnson (wait, I think he was a real person)
I wonder what the Vatican thinks about this.
Early on in my reading of the Volokh blog, I saw a reference to Professor Bainbridge’s blog post on public service unions. I followed the link and was stunned. The Prof said he was required to believe in the legitimacy of unions in general because as a faithful Catholic he had to follow Church teaching on the issue. He cited an encyclical of Leo XIII.
What's "stunning" about this ?
What is supposed to be surprising about that?
As George Orwell put it, One can’t be both Catholic and mature. Bainbridge, left to himself, would clearly have been anti-union.
Are any of your opinions dictated to you by someone else? I don’t recall anyone here being so subservient.
I was raised in the Church and I’m glad I left.
TLDR: He is pissed because the DoJ attempted to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
Can you describe these crimes?
He was convicted of some of them, and indicted for many more.
It was all over the news.
Can you describe the crimes for which he was convicted?
Who were his victims?
Those lions won't sea themselves.
Trump used payment of legal fees to Cohen disguise the true nature payments made to Stormie Daniels for her silence..
Now substitute "Clinton" for "Trump," "Perkins Coie" for "Cohen," "Fusion GPS" for "Stormie Daniels," and "Steele Dossier" for "her silence."
Trump's lawyer submitted a bill for legal services, and Trump's accountant paid it.
The difference is that buying the distribution of a ginned up scandal actually IS a campaign expenditure in need of reporting, while paying hush money isn't.
In fact, if Trump had filed it as a campaign expenditure, they would instead have gone after him for campaign fraud.
Felonies.
Mark Tushnet on the same question: https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/04/why-i-signed-harvard-law-professors.html
I believe Trump should have had the Justice Department investigate to determine if laws were broken rather than unilaterally imposing punishment by executive decree. If the Justice Department concluded laws were broken by the firm, then prosecute the firm. That is how the system is supposed to work. That is how the rule of law is supposed to work.
Trump would have to take Perkind Coie to court if he wanted to revoke their license to practice law, let alone imprison their leadership under a Park doctrine argument.
This is not so for revocation of a security clearance, and in this case, there is more than enough probable cause. to believe that Perkins Coie was complicit in the crimes the Clinton campaign admitted to.
This is not so for revocation of a security clearance
Obviously this is BS too. Retaliation contrary to the First Amendment is still retaliation if it involves security clearances. It's not like Perkins Coie is suing to get security clearances that it didn't already have.
Setting aside the minor error — lawyers, not law firms, have licenses to practice law — Trump cannot revoke anyone's license to practice law under any circumstances. Not by EO, not by "taking [them] to court."
1) Perkins and the others aren't challenging the security clearance issue.
2) The Clinton campaign did not admit to any crime.
3) The FEC expressly found that there wasn't probable cause to believe that Perkins Coie did anything wrong.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION March 29, 2022
"After conducting an investigation in this matter, the Commission found probable cause to believe that the DNC Services Corp./Democratic National Committee and Virginia McGregor in her official capacity as treasurer (the “DNC”) violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A) and (b)(6)(B)(v) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i). The Commission further found probable cause to believe that Hillary for America and Elizabeth Jones in her official capacity as treasurer (“HFA”) violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4)(i). On February 17, 2022, signed conciliation agreements with the DNC and HFA were accepted by the Commission."
2. While it's true that the Clinton campaign and DNC didn't confess their guilt, it's rather irrelevant in that they were none the less found guilty, and paid a fine.
3. It's true that Perkins Coie's actions were not, themselves, illegal, though they probably knew that they were assisting in Clinton and the DNC's own illegal actions. But it was the latter failing to report the expense as campaign expenditure which was the crime, not the actual expenditure.
2. A finding of probable cause isn’t the same as being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The agreement with the Clinton campaign says that, “Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, Respondent does not concede, but will not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe.” I’m pretty sure that the $8,000 civil penalty the Clinton campaign agreed to pay was less than the cost of continuing to contesting the allegations.
In my head I'm hearing Stan Freberg and co-conspirators performing "A Man Can't Be Too Careful What He Signs These Days".