Business
Law Firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale Sue Trump Administration to Block Executive Orders
The nation’s legal profession is being split between those that want to fight back against President Trump’s attacks on the industry and those that prefer to engage in the art of the deal.
Two big firms sued the Trump administration on Friday, seeking to stop executive orders that could impair their ability to represent clients. The lawsuits filed by Jenner & Block and WilmerHale highlight how some elite firms are willing to fight Mr. Trump’s campaign targeting those he doesn’t like, while others, like Paul Weiss and Skadden, have cut deals to appease the president.
In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has issued similarly styled executive orders against firms that he perceives as enemies and threats to national security. The orders could create an existential crisis for firms because they would strip lawyers of security clearances, bar them from entering federal buildings and discourage federal officials from interacting with the firms.
“I am heartened by the fact that Jenner and Wilmer are joining Perkins in pushing back on these illegal executive orders. It shows that capitulation is not the only route,” said Matthew Diller, a law professor and former dean of Fordham University School of Law. “In the long run, it will strengthen their reputations in the market as forceful advocates who stand up for principle, a quality that many clients will value.”
Jenner & Block said in a statement that its suit was intended to “stop an unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court.” A third firm, Perkins Coie, has also sued the Trump administration over the same matter, and had some early success in stopping the executive order.
Jenner & Block also created a website — Jenner Stands Firm — to publicize its filing and to highlight newspaper editorials criticizing the executive orders and comments from law school professors questioning the legality of Mr. Trump’s actions.
On Friday evening, Judge John Bates of Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order that bars the Trump administration from punishing Jenner & Block. The judge called the portion of the executive order that criticizes the pro bono legal work the firm does for organizations “disturbing” and “troubling.”
Later Friday, another federal judge in Washington, Richard Leon, issued a temporary restraining order granting WilmerHale most of the relief the firm sought from the executive order against it.
The effort to fight back in a public manner stands in contrast with the way other firms have handled Mr. Trump’s campaign against them.
Also on Friday, Mr. Trump told reporters that the White House had reached a deal with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom that would require the firm to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services to causes he supports. Skadden and Mr. Trump reached a deal after the law firm had reached out behind the scenes to head off the filing of an executive order against it.
“We very much appreciate their coming to the table,” Mr. Trump said.
In a statement, Skadden said, “We engaged proactively with the president and his team in working together constructively to reach this agreement.” The firm added that the agreement “is in the best interests of our clients, our people and our firm.”
Last week, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison announced an agreement in which Mr. Trump rescinded his executive order against the law firm in exchange for its committing to represent clients regardless of their political leanings and pledging $40 million in pro bono legal services to issues Mr. Trump has championed.
Paul Weiss reached its deal within days of Mr. Trump’s executive order after the firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, flew from New York for an Oval Office meeting with the president and some of his staff. Mr. Karp said in an email to the firm that he had moved quickly because Paul Weiss’s big corporate clients were threatened with the “loss of their government contracts and the loss of access to the government” if they stuck with the firm.
Mr. Karp cast the deal as a move to save Paul Weiss, which employs about 2,000 people. He also complained that other law firms had not come out to support Paul Weiss.
But that deal was widely criticized. The firm — which is stocked with Democrats who have opposed Mr. Trump — was seen as bending to the president to protect its bottom line.
“A large part of this are business decisions being made by law firms,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a former prosecutor and a professor at New York Law School who specializes in legal ethics. “These firms are calculating that their clients will feel aligned with their decisions.”
Mr. Trump has been going after big law firms that he contends have “weaponized” the legal system. He is initially targeting law firms that hired lawyers who were once involved in the many investigations of his actions during his first presidential term and his business dealings.
The executive orders have been premised on Mr. Trump’s notion that the law firms’ partisan representations and pro bono work for groups that he disagrees with could pose a threat to national security.
A White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said in a statement: “Democrats and their law firms weaponized the legal process to try to punish and jail their political opponents. The president’s executive orders are lawful directives to ensure that the president’s agenda is implemented and that law firms comply with the law.”
The suit by Jenner & Block was filed in federal court in Washington, and the firm is asking a judge to step in immediately and stop the executive order, which was leveled against it by Mr. Trump this week. The firm is being represented by Cooley, another law firm. The lawsuit named numerous government agencies and officials as defendants.
WilmerHale filed its lawsuit in the same federal court and is being represented by Paul Clement, a solicitor general during the administration of President George W. Bush.
Jenner & Block and WilmerHale represent some of the nation’s biggest companies, and often deal with regulatory issues before government agencies. Jenner & Block has represented the defense contractor General Dynamics, as well as the entertainment giant Viacom, while one of WilmerHale’s major clients is JPMorgan Chase.
The executive order accused the firm of engaging “in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends” and claimed the firm “discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based ‘targets.’”
The executive orders against both Jenner & Block and WilmerHale focused, in large part, on the work of lawyers with the federal investigation into ties between Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. The investigation was led by a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, a former director of the F.B.I. who was a partner at WilmerHale.
One of Mr. Mueller’s top assistants on that investigation was Andrew Weissmann, a longtime federal prosecutor and former partner at Jenner & Block.
Both Mr. Mueller and Mr. Weissmann rejoined their firms after the investigation was completed. The lawyers left their firms in 2021. But on the WilmerHale website, there is a page devoted to a lengthy interview with Mr. Mueller, who is normally media-averse, in which he discusses his “remarkable life and career.”
Jenner & Block’s complaint said Mr. Trump’s action was unconstitutional and would compromise the ability of the firm’s more than 500 lawyers to “zealously advocate for its clients.”
The lawsuit noted that Mr. Trump’s deal with Paul Weiss did not include any new security measures imposed on that firm.
In a statement, WilmerHale, which has about 1,000 lawyers, said the president’s executive order “is a plainly unlawful attack on the bedrock principles of our nation’s legal system — our clients’ right to counsel and the First Amendment.”
Perkins Coie, one of the first law firms targeted by Mr. Trump, sued him earlier this month. A federal judge temporarily halted Mr. Trump’s order, saying it was likely illegal and adding: “It sends little chills down my spine.”
Vanita Gupta, a civil rights lawyer and former senior Justice Department official in the Biden and Obama administrations, said the new lawsuits were necessary in a time of peril for the legal profession.
“The only way through this attack on the very foundations of our legal system is by fighting back,” Ms. Gupta said. “If firms want to be trusted to fight the biggest fights, they must not cave to blatantly unconstitutional government actions.”
She praised the three firms that are fighting the administration and said she hoped others would do the same because “collective action is the only way to pull through in this moment.”
Mr. Trump’s executive order against Paul Weiss was motivated in part by the fact that a former partner at that firm has worked with the Manhattan district attorney’s office in trying to build a criminal case against Mr. Trump after he lost the 2020 election.
One pattern of the executive orders is going after law firms that have employed attorneys whom Mr. Trump’s sees as his personal enemies. One of those is Mr. Weissmann, whom Mr. Trump has often lashed out against on his social media platform, Truth Social.
Mr. Weissmann has a reputation as an aggressive investigator. In recent years, he has emerged as a public critic of Mr. Trump, appearing frequently on MSNBC to provide legal analysis about the range of indictments Mr. Trump faced for his conduct.
In the complaint, the firm said Mr. Weissmann had not worked for it since 2021. It also noted that it has had prominent lawyers from all political parties on its staff.
Tyler Pager contributed reporting.
Business
Billionaire exodus? California drew 10 times more venture capital than any other state this year
Despite concerns that California’s costs and regulations are bad for business, the state has attracted an unprecedented pile of capital this year, and no other state is even close.
The Golden State’s deep pool of talent, rich investors and other tech infrastructure have made it ground zero for the artificial intelligence explosion. That has helped it attract more than $335 billion in venture capital funding this year, according to PitchBook’s private market funding data released Thursday.
Its next biggest competitor, New York, raised less than a tenth of California’s total. Texas raised 1/40th of the amount.
“California has far and away the most [deals], obviously, a huge amount of that sits in the [San Francisco] Bay Area,” said Kyle Stanford, director of U.S. venture capital research at PitchBook. “Los Angeles, San Diego has a really strong tech market that I think benefits a lot from capital moving easily between San Francisco and L.A.”
Although a campaign for a new tax on billionaires has convinced some ultra-rich residents to shift to other states and businesses often complain that high property and energy costs and an anti-business regulatory regime make it too tough to make money in the state, the inability of the top talent, companies and investors in AI to set up elsewhere shows California’s enduring attraction.
The state’s economy grew 5% last year to a record $4.25 trillion, making it larger than every country other than the U.S., China and Germany. It is home to nearly 400 billion-dollar startups — more than any other state, according to CB Insights.
Southern California has emerged as a go-to address for fast-growing space and defense tech companies.
“California’s workers, entrepreneurs, and innovators continue to prove that investing in California delivers real results,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement last week in response to strong productivity numbers for the state. “As one of the largest economies in the world, the Golden State demonstrates that a strong workforce, economic growth, innovation, and performance go hand in hand.”
In the three months that ended in June, 1,087 California companies raised $108.8 billion in venture capital. Just three companies — Anthropic, Jeff Bezos’ Project Prometheus and Anduril Industries — absorbed 75% of that total. Anthropic alone raised $65 billion, which valued it at nearly $1 trillion.
Among metropolitan regions, Los Angeles ranked behind only Silicon Valley and New York, which attracted $98 billion and $11.5 billion in venture investment, respectively.
“Capital is flowing back into American innovation with real force,” said Bobby Franklin, president of the National Venture Capital Assn., an industry group that put out the report with PitchBook. “Investment activity is picking up, fundraising is improving, and there are early signs the IPO market is beginning to reopen.”
Investors poured in nearly $8 billion across 207 deals in the Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Santa Ana metro areas, up 28% from a year earlier, according to PitchBook.
The top deals in the region were led by aerospace and defense companies Anduril Industries, which raised $5 billion, and Impulse Space, which attracted $500 million.
Companies in industrial parts, software, consulting and life sciences were the other sectors in the Southland that attracted venture investments. El Segundo-based industrial supplies company Advanced Manufacturing Company of America and Huntington Beach-based aerospace company Mach Industries each raised $300 million.
To be sure, the surge in the size and number of monster deals could be overshadowing other money-raising efforts from smaller companies and investment by smaller funds, industry experts said.
Nearly 90% of invested dollars went to AI firms, up from last year, when around 65% of new funds were allocated to AI.
“If you’re a tech company and you’re not an AI company, you have a very, very difficult opportunity ahead of you to raise capital,” Stanford said.
This concentration of capital in AI leaves smaller, middle-of-the-road venture funds without large AI holdings struggling to return capital to their investors.
Only the largest funds, such as Andreessen Horowitz and Sequoia Capital — which possess the war chest to back OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX — stand to gain from their initial public offerings of stock.
“It’s going to concentrate the fundraising over the next few years as well into these already very large names,” Stanford said.
Beyond the two potential blockbuster listings — Anthropic and OpenAI, each valued around $1 trillion — the IPO pipeline is thin.
“We don’t really have a strong IPO market,” Stanford said. “Obviously, SpaceX’s IPO is great. OpenAI and Anthropic, if they go out this year, will be very large drivers of distribution. But a vast majority of investors do not have exposure to them, and so that money will not make it back to them.”
Whether California’s venture-investing boom can continue at this record-breaking pace now hinges on how the IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI perform.
“If Anthropic and OpenAI have really strong financials, that’s a big push of support for the rest of the market,” Stanford said.
Business
Waymo is starting robotaxi service in San Diego
Waymo, the driverless taxi company that operates in more than 10 cities, will soon serve customers in San Diego.
The company has been testing its autonomous vehicles in San Diego with a safety driver behind the wheel since earlier this year. Rides without a human driver became available to employees Thursday and will open to members of the public later this year.
Waymo, which announced the expansion Wednesday, will also bring its taxis to Tampa, Las Vegas and Denver.
“If you’re in one of these four new cities, download the app to be notified when it’s time to ride,” the company said in a blog post.
Waymo has offered fully autonomous rides in San Francisco since 2022 and in Los Angeles since 2024.
It also serves customers in Nashville, Phoenix, Miami and other cities.
In May, Waymo launched a cheaper robotaxi dubbed the Ojai, which is better equipped for difficult driving conditions such as snowy roads.
The Ojai will supplement Waymo’s fleet of Jaguar I-Paces, the company said. In San Diego, services will be provided with the Ojai.
Waymo also announced Wednesday it’s beginning autonomous driving with a safety driver in its newest retrofitted vehicle, the Hyundai IONIQ 5.
“This phase allows us to validate our technology for fully autonomous operations as we work to bring riders even more ways to enjoy Waymo in the future,” the company said.
The company plans to eventually have tens of thousands of driverless taxis made per year, starting with the Ojai, then scaling using the IONIQ 5s.
The move into San Diego and three other cities widens the gap between Waymo and its competitors in the robotaxi race.
Elon Musk’s Tesla robotaxis and Amazon-owned Zoox are shuttling customers autonomously, but are nowhere near the scale at which Waymo operates.
Other companies are working on autonomous trucks and freight trains.
Waymo’s San Diego service area will include Pacific Beach, Normal Heights, La Playa and Southcrest, among other neighborhoods, the company said.
Business
California soccer fans sue StubHub after it fails to deliver expensive World Cup tickets
StubHub is getting a red card from some World Cup fans
Two World Cup customers are suing the New York-based ticket-selling company, alleging “false and misleading” advertising that left them without tickets or a refund for the World Cup games they paid to attend.
In federal court in New York last week, two Californians — Julia Reeker Moghal and Reuben Renteria — sued StubHub seeking monetary damages and a ban on the company selling World Cup tickets. The lawsuit aims to become a class action and comes after weeks of fierce criticism and complaints from customers regarding the company’s practices.
Throughout the World Cup, videos have emerged on Instagram and TikTok of StubHub customers describing their nightmare experiences with the ticket-selling platform.
Some said they had purchased tickets to World Cup games as early as November of last year, booked flights and hotels and arranged travel plans, then StubHub notified them days to weeks before the match of a refund for their tickets, which they never requested.
There were similar complaints about last-minute cancellations from people who bought Coachella tickets on StubHub.
In the lawsuit, Moghal said she had purchased three tickets for nearly $2,000 for the June 18 match between Switzerland and Bosnia-Herzegovina at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, which were then canceled by StubHub. Moghal said she was contacted by StubHub and told her tickets would remain canceled, then was later told the tickets would be available one hour before the game.
When the match began, Moghal said she was at SoFi Stadium, but the tickets never came.
Renteria said he paid around $2,300 for the June 18 Mexico versus South Korea match in Guadalajara, Mexico, but they were canceled
“Devoted soccer fans have traveled from around the world to attend World Cup matches — and they reasonably relied on StubHub to provide the tickets they paid for as well as on StubHub’s warranty,” Blake Hunter Yagman, the attorney representing the two, said in a statement. “Instead of rewarding their business, StubHub sold them World Cup tickets that they either could not provide or on speculation, only to be stranded, in many cases, at the stadium gates without any recourse.”
According to StubHub’s website, its Fan Protect Guarantee states the platform will deliver valid tickets or refund in the event of a ticket issue, and that it will “go out of our way to find replacement tickets” of a comparable value. The lawsuit alleges the replacement tickets many fans were given by StubHub were worse than their original tickets.
FIFA, the World Cup organizer, states in its terms and conditions that the FIFA Marketplace, its own ticket-selling platform, is the only authorized platform for World Cup tickets, and that only tickets purchased through it are guaranteed by FIFA to be valid.
Despite the risk of purchasing through a third-party platform such as StubHub, many fans opted to do so to avoid the 30% FIFA resale tax, believing that the Fan Protect Guarantee would safeguard their order.
Since World Cup tickets began selling on FIFA Marketplace last September, fans have expressed disappointment in the expensive price tag. FIFA utilized a dynamic pricing system for the sale, and as sales phases progressed leading up to the games, the cost of tickets increased tremendously. In March, the extreme cost of tickets prompted 69 members of Congress to write a letter to FIFA urging them to lower their prices.
Tickets for the upcoming Friday match between Spain and Belgium in Los Angeles are selling on StubHub for over $1,300.
StubHub said in various statements to the news and in legal proceedings that ticket cancellations were a result of transfer problems and issues with FIFA’s ticketing infrastructure.
StubHub did not respond to requests for comment.
A FIFA spokesperson responded to this accusation in a statement, saying, “FIFA has no visibility over, or control of, secondary market ticket transactions carried out on third-party platforms. The transactions facilitated on these platforms occur entirely independently of FIFA’s official ticketing platform. With reference to the reliability of the services available to fans on FIFA’s official ticket platform, FIFA rejects any suggestion that the functional issues being experienced by users of third-party platforms with respect to FIFA World Cup 2026 tickets are the result of FIFA’s ticketing infrastructure.”
-
Maine2 minutes agoMaine’s high court keeps transgender athlete referendum off 2026 ballot
-
Maryland5 minutes agoMD woman sentenced to 2 years, $6.8M restitution in multi-million-dollar laundering scheme
-
Michigan17 minutes agoHarmful algal blooms reported on 2 large West Michigan lakes
-
Massachusetts20 minutes agoInsider tips for navigating the Brimfield Antique Flea Market
-
Minnesota25 minutes agoNorthwest Minnesota Foundation awarded $200,000 for child care economic development
-
Mississippi32 minutes agoFamily of Mississippi teen Nolan Wells demand investigation into son’s death
-
Missouri35 minutes agoSEMA sets info sessions for FEMA Public Assistance for late-April storms
-
Montana40 minutes ago8 Most Welcoming Towns In Montana’s Countryside