In his March 22nd MEMORANDUM targeting the legal profession in general, President Trump condemned lawyers for “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation…” https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court/. Much of the attack was against immigration lawyers where, without foundation, Mr. Trump claimed
rampant fraud and meritless claims have supplanted the constitutional and lawful bases…[and the immigration system] is likewise replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms. For instance, the immigration bar, and powerful Big Law pro bono practices, frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims.
Id. Not a single instance of fraud or coaching was cited, and there is no kink to a listing of attorneys who have committed such acts.
As bad as this McCarthy-ite statement of incidents with no supporting facts is, what should give concern are the directives that follow:
I hereby direct the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.
I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement of their respective regulations governing attorney conduct and discipline. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. 292.1 et seq.; 8 C.F.R. 1003.101 et seq.; 8 C.F.R. 1292.19.
I further direct the Attorney General to take all appropriate action to refer for disciplinary action any attorney whose conduct in Federal court or before any component of the Federal Government appears to violate professional conduct rules…
Id.
The message of this MEMORANDUM, alone and with the attacks on major law firms, is clear to those who challenge a Trump policy or represent immigrants: you will be referred for disciplinary action if your conduct “appears to violate professional conduct rules…”
No Judge decides “frivolous” or “unreasonable” before action is taken. Rather, “appears to” is in the eyes of the Government lawyer. Given the Trump condemnation of virtually every challenge as radical or without foundation, every lawyer becomes vulnerable and potentially hesitant to bring justified legal claims. “If I make an argument my Government opponent dislikes, I may be disciplined.”
Take one example. Lawyers have challenged the Executive Order narrowing birthright citizenship. In its responsive pleading, the Government argues that
assertions about the supposed illegality of the EO cannot substitute for a showing that they are entitled to extraordinary relief. And as to each factor of that analysis, Plaintiffs fail to carry their burden. To start, Plaintiffs lack a cause of action—neither the Citizenship Clause nor any statute allows them to bring their asserted claims.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.64907/gov.uscourts.nhd.64907.58.1.pdf#page=20 Clearly, judges have disagreed, enjoining the Government from enforcing the Trump narrow definition of citizenship. As another court addressing the birthright challenge ruled, “[f]or starters, each plaintiff has standing to sue, because the uncontested facts establish each would suffer direct injury from the EO’s implementation. The plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.” Doe v. Trump, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27582, *10 (D. Mass. 2025)
But the Government brief cast the pleadings as without basis (having no cause of action), and claims without a valid basis are by definition “frivolous.’ See, e.g., Intamin, Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp., 483 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed.Cir. 2007)(referencing the Ninth Circuit definition of a frivolous claim as one “legally or factually baseless from an objective perspective . . .”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Under the MEMORANDUM, the Government lawyers must seek sanctions against the movants’ lawyers. And it matters not that no such sanctions have been sought (yet); the threat looms and the consequent risk of chilling lawyers from taking cases or pressing arguments persists.
But are there “vexatious” lawyers? I found two where the judiciary agreed.
For the first, a federal judge wrote of “a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose.” Trump v. Clinton, 653 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1210 (Fla.S.D. 2023). The attorney in question was Trump’s new interim US Attorney for New Jersey. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/24/trump-alina-habba-new-jersey-00244880
And the second? A lawyer who “flagrantly misused his prominent position…[and] repeatedly and intentionally made false statements, some of which were perjurious…” Matter of Giuliani, 230 A.D.3d 101, 124 (N.Y. App Div 1, 2024). That was Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
The lessons? First is a simple one – Mr. Trump should clean his own house and stop intimidating lawyers who have done nothing wrong. The second is more daunting but essential. Lawyers need to be “vexatious,” not as profligate litigants with no basis for their claims or arguments but as what this administration deems vexatious – lawyers who speak out, with sound grounding in the law, against unconstitutional, inhumane and unlawful Government conduct.