In his attacks on American law firms, Donald Trump has — in a way that is becoming increasingly impossible to explain away — made clear just how far he will use the power of his office to suppress and weaken those with whom he disagrees. One line in his recent order on Jenner & Block tells i t all, as the president accuses the law firm of engaging “in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” Pause on that a moment. Jenner & Block, among other clients, represented trans athletes. Other firms in Trump’s cross hairs have represented migrants and members of the LGBTQ community. What Trump is saying, in effect, is that if you come down on a different side of a political issue from him you are “undermining justice” and the ” interests of the United States.” And therefore, by extension, you are deserving of whatever punishment he and his Justice Department deem fit. That is textbook authoritarianism. As Louis VIX put it: “L’État, c’est moi.” I am the state. This isn’t the sky is falling stuff. The whole idea of America was built on a very simple concept: It’s OK to disagree with the government. Trump’s attacks on law firms, and on universities like Columbia, lay bare his game plan. He is stifling dissent, stamping out those who would challenge him, financially crippling anyone who poses a threat. Is that what Americans voted for? No. They wanted lower prices, not an undermining of democratic principles of justice and fairness. Fortunately, a number of firms that Trump has singled out for attacks with executive orders, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Perkins Coie, are pushing back, forcing the administration to make its case in a court of law. Keep it up. To anyone sane who respects basic American norms and traditions, these firms are doing their job — and the abuse of executive power to treat them roughly as one might a terrorist organization is to cast the rule of law into a dung heap. It’s not just what’s left of the Trump era at issue here. He’ll be gone from the scene on Jan. 20, 2029. The bigger question is whether America is ready and willing to enter an era of extralegal, extraconstitutional attack after reprisal after attack after reprisal, whereby the White House and Department of Justice and other parts of the federal legal apparatus become mere weapons of partisan punishment. His retaliation now is as nakedly wrong as siccing the IRS or the FBI onto those who voted against him. These were people and institutions who not only broke no laws, but who explicitly sought to uphold the law. The cowardly capitulation of Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps are negative examples to be learned from. The backbone of the growing number of big firms that are fighting back in court is to be admired. If judges look at these cases fairly and honestly — as we expect even Trump-appointed judges, on balance, to do — they will side against a president and an administration eager to turn these United States into a tin-pot dictatorship, and make clear to all that the rule of law, which has from the beginning has been America’s most essential distinguishing feature, must be much, much more than a petty partisan cudgel. ...read more read less