Wisconsin State Bar leadership betrays the rule of law

Why has the Wisconsin State Bar take a pass on condemning unconstitutional intimidation of lawyers? And why can't anyone find out the details of how that decision was made? |Getty Images Creative
The State Bar of Wisconsin was created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the trade association that all Wisconsin lawyers must join to obtain their law licenses. Its vision statement declares its cardinal purpose: 'Our members are the respected guardians of the dignity and integrity of the rule of law within a fair and accessible justice system.'
Yet recently, State Bar leaders deliberately violated their own vision statement by refusing in any way to push back against President Donald Trump's blatantly illegal executive orders attacking lawyers, without whom the rule of law cannot exist 'within a fair and accessible justice system.' Why they shirked their express mission remains a mystery because State Bar leaders voted in secrecy on the issue and refused to explain themselves to the 25,000 State Bar members they purportedly serve. Instead, they have stonewalled membership with a bogus cone of silence over their deliberations.
Here is the context:
Earlier this Spring, President Donald Trump issued punitive executive orders targeting 14 prominent law firms because he didn't like their lawyers, clients, cases, or speech. He acted to cripple their ability to provide legal services to their clients. Trump then offered these firms an extortionate 'deal' he thought they couldn't refuse: agree to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal work to further Trump's political agenda, such as free work for the coal industry, or else lose security clearances, access to federal buildings and even government contracts held by their clients.
Several of the firms capitulated, offering roughly $1 billion in legal services to Trump that otherwise would have funded true 'pro bono' work for the underserved. Several others, including Perkins Coie, a distinguished national firm with Wisconsin members, refused. They fought back in court, and won.
Their wins are unsurprising. The U.S. Constitution undeniably bars our government from wielding its power to target lawyers based on their representation of clients, their employment decisions, or their advocating positions the administration doesn't like.
Federal courts have been unanimous and unsparing in condemning Trump's orders. One judge characterized such an order as a 'personal vendetta' by Trump that 'the framers of our Constitution would see…as a shocking abuse of power.'
Retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig commented that executive orders targeting law firms are 'the most sinister and corrupt' of the 'ocean of unconstitutional orders' coming out of the White House. He correctly emphasized that the legality of the executive orders is beside the point for Trump, who knows that no court will uphold them. The purpose, rather, is to intimidate lawyers.
Wisconsin lawyers are officers of the court, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. We are thus duty-bound to guard the Constitution against existential hazards like Trump's illegitimate orders. The rule of law requires no less.
Because the State Bar, through its governing board, is uniquely positioned to speak on issues of universal concern to all lawyers, we and others have repeatedly urged the Bar to honor its vision statement and publicly condemn Trump's orders. Various versions of a statement supporting the rule of law have been offered for the board of governors' consideration and adoption, statements that no reasonable lawyer could find objectionable while remaining true to the lawyer's oath.
We are not asking a lot. Already the State Bar—once a national leader in advancing the rule of law—is woefully behind many other respected lawyer organizations. On March 26, 2025, for example, the American Bar Association was joined by more than a hundred other lawyer organizations in a public statement specifically rejecting 'the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients…'
The ABA statement continued: 'There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession… to speak out against intimidation.'
On May 22, we were informed by a single member of the Wisconsin State Bar board of governors that the board met in closed session May 14, and 'following extensive discussion protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Board voted to make no statement concerning recent actions taken by the Executive Branch of the federal government.'
That's all we know because board members also voted to remain silent on what occurred during the closed meeting, for reasons they will also not disclose. Newly-elected members of the board of governors taking office July 1 will be barred from learning more about the May 14 closed meeting until they first take a vow of silence on what they may learn even though they are instructed by their position description to '[c]ommunicate regularly with constituents,' and to '[b]e well versed in the State Bar's public policy positions and be prepared to explain them to…members of the bar.'
We have since asked 12 representatives on the board several questions about what happened in secret and why. Only three replied, but they provided little information. We still don't know: (1) why the question was taken up in closed session, (2) why State Bar leaders needed legal counsel to advise whether the Bar should issue a statement supporting the rule of law, (3) what was discussed, (4) why no statement was issued, and (5) what was the final vote.
We asked State Bar leadership and staff to forward our questions to all 52 members of the board but, despite an agreement to do so, the questions were not sent. We still have no answers.
More than 400 years ago Shakespeare highlighted the tyrant's tactic for thwarting the rule of law: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.' Federal District Judge Beryl Howell invoked Shakespeare's warning in her scathing takedown of the executive order targeting Perkins Coie, further observing that when American history is written, 'those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded.'
The success of Trump's intimidation campaign depends largely on whether lawyers forcefully resist his illegal bullying at every opportunity. Thus, the State Bar's cowering non-response bodes ill for the rule of law in Wisconsin. As the American Bar Association stated: 'If the lawyers do not speak…who will protect the bedrock of justice?'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

23 minutes ago

• Forbes

GM's $4 Billion Gamble - Gas Guzzlers Or Electric Future?

General Motors, a flagship of the U.S. auto industry for 117 years, has quietly shifted its bold electric-vehicle ambitions. Just a week ago, the company announced a $4 billion investment to ramp up production of gasoline-powered SUVs and trucks at plants in Michigan, Kansas, and Tennessee—aimed at countering flagging EV demand and mitigating U.S. tariffs. Lafayette - March 12, 2024: Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD Z71 display at a dealership. Chevy offers the Tahoe ... More in LS, LT, RST and Premier models. MY:2024 New President = new plans Once GM pledged to go 'all-electric by 2035', riding the momentum of the Inflation Reduction Act and Biden-era clean energy enthusiasm. But EV sales in the U.S. have softened, Washington's EV subsidies are under threat and tariffs are forcing auto companies to rethink their supply chains. Also, by this time, most everyone who had been thinking about buying an EV has bought one, insiders say. The novelty has worn off. Some have simply shrugged and gone back to either all-gas-powered vehicles, hybrids or PHEVS. GM will relocate full-size gas SUV and light-duty truck production to its Orion Assembly in Michigan, redirect the Chevrolet Blazer to Spring Hill, Tennessee, and bring the popular Chevy Equinox back to Fairfax, Kansas, reconfiguring plants that were previously set for EV output, Meanwhile, its Tonawanda, NY plant gets an $888 million investment to produce V‑8 engines—not electric motors. Why Now? Analysts Sam Abuelsamid (Telemetry) argue GM's 'all-electric by 2035' pledge was always conditional—dependent on generous federal EV incentives and solid consumer demand. With both eroding, GM is hedging its bets, and you can't blame them. The Trump administration further complicated matters with 25% tariffs on vehicles and parts from Mexico. By shifting production to U.S. facilities, GM avoids those costs—an immediate financial relief during a tumultuous market. GM says they're not abandoning EVs This isn't an EV abandonment, GM insists. CEO Mary Barra reaffirmed that an electric future remains central, but the company must remain 'responsive to where the customer is." At a recent Wall Street Journal event, she stressed that infrastructure limitations and consumer affordability still impede widespread EV adoption. Still, GM's U-turn complicates its narrative. Just days earlier, the company urged employees to lobby against California's EV mandate, describing it as disconnected from 'market realities' and threatening vehicle affordability. What are the broader implications? GM joins rivals like Volkswagen and Mercedes, which have scaled back their electrification timetables. Industry experts see this as recognition that while EVs are part of the future, they aren't (yet) the only future. Here's what GM's new position really means: For EV adoption - This signals government policy isn't enough. Automakers need stable incentives and reliable infrastructure to build real EV demand. For domestic jobs - Short-term, the gas engine investment creates U.S. manufacturing jobs and protects against import tariffs. Longterm? GM is now playing both offense and defense—building more ICE vehicles to stay profitable while maintaining EV capacity for when conditions improve. The bottom line is that GM's shift is pragmatic, not ideological or a declaration of 'Drill, baby, drill!' It's a response to market and policy uncertainty—but it also represents a retreat from the aspirational vision of a fully electric future.

USA Today

25 minutes ago

• USA Today

US bombs Iran: Trump's gamble: Nuclear threat ended? Or the start of 'endless war'?

It's Donald Trump's war now. The decision to bomb Iran revealed the conflict between some of the president's fundamental impulses. The highest hope of President Donald Trump's bombing of Iran: A rogue nuclear program that had defied a half-dozen of his predecessors has finally been destroyed. The deepest fear: Just four years after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, the United States is now enmeshed in another war in a volatile region, with perilous and uncertain consequences. "Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a late-night announcement in the East Room on June 21, interrupting Americans' Saturday night plans with news that B-2 bombers had dropped the world's most powerful conventional bombs on three sites considered crucial to Tehran's nuclear program. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace." Watch Trump's address to the nation after US bombed Iranian nuke sites More: US on 'high alert' for Iran retaliation, says nuke program 'obliterated' That's the calculation behind "Operation Midnight Hammer," anyway − that despite its initial bluster, Tehran will be forced to abandon its nuclear program. But Trump acknowledged there were other possibilities. "Remember, there are many targets left," he said, surrounded by a solemn-looking trio of advisers − Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speech and skill." A war between Trump's fundamental impulses The White House debate over whether to launch the bombers put at odds some of Trump's most fundamental impulses. One is his fervent opposition in all three of his presidential campaigns against "forever wars," including the costly and controversial conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His "America First" agenda reflects a determination to focus less on places like Ukraine and more on challenges close to home. Though most Republican congressional leaders praised the president for the decision, some people prominent in the MAGA movement did not. "This is not our fight," Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene complained on social media. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war." On the other hand, Trump is also famously impatient with problems that have frustrated standard solutions. Witness, for instance, his willingness to press the limits of the law in identifying and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. The lengthy efforts at negotiation with Iran, like much of diplomacy, seemed unlikely to reach the sort of dramatic and decisive conclusion he favors. The bombing of Iran also reflects his alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to his country. For the prime minister, achieving his decades-old dream of destroying that program is the stuff of legacy. It's the stuff of Trump's legacy, too − a powerful message for a president who cannot run for the Oval Office again. Netanyahu struck that chord. "Congratulations, President Trump," he said in Tel Aviv. "His leadership today has created a pivot in history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace." Congressional leaders notified as planes headed home For better or worse, this will be Trump's war. For one thing, he didn't seek the approval of Congress, which under the Constitution has the right to declare war, though the president has broad authority to order the use of military force. The War Powers Act, passed after President Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, requires presidents to notify Congress and limits the length of deployments. After the U.S. bombers had left Iranian airspace, the administration immediately notified congressional leaders, Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing early June 22. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had risked dragging the United States into a long war "without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what's at stake." Those will be the elements of the debate ahead, in echoes of the Iraq War. How serious was the Iranian nuclear threat? And how will voters weigh the stakes and the cost? In Istanbul, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Trump of having "deceived his own voters" by launching a strike despite his campaign promises. The U.S. administration holds "sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions," he said. But he didn't specify whether Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces in the region. Hours after the bunker-buster bombs were dropped, Iran launched a new round of missiles toward Israel. On June 23, the foreign minister plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an ally but one who has his own war to fight.

Newsweek

28 minutes ago

• Newsweek

'Mass Layoff' Provision in Trump Bill Sparks Alarm: 'Deeply Concerning'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A provision in the Senate budget bill would allow for millions of dollars to go directly toward President Donald Trump and the administration's ability to lay off federal workers without the consent of Congress. It is a move that Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, called "deeply, deeply concerning." The provision, written by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would give $100 million to the Office of Budget Management (OMB), according to Government Executive. The office is run by Project 2025 author Russ Vought, a proponent of mass government layoffs, which are a central tenet of Project 2025. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Photo Olinsky referenced the lawsuits by federal employees fired by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts, telling Newsweek: "[This bill is] exactly the kind of thing that the president has been trying to do, I would say, illegally, as he seeks to shut down departments or agencies, or limit [agencies] to a handful of staff down from 1000s and do large mass layoffs and other kinds of cuts to entire functions or programs." Those in favor of the bill have said: "Any president should have the ability to clear the waste he or she has identified without obstruction." Newsweek contacted Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, via email for comment. Why It Matters Many of the people affected by mass federal layoffs initiated by DOGE at the start of Trump's second term are now in court as they were made without congressional approval. The provision would allow for federal employees to be fired with little to no legal recourse. Olinsky told Newsweek that it would lead to current and future distrust in the government by federal workers. Federal work used to be a lesser paid but significantly more stable line of work. If the provision passes, federal work will be seen as a much less realistic plan for long-term employment and will result in bright and capable Americans choosing to work in the private sector. What To Know The provision of the bill, which is the Senate's version of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by the House, appears in a section about government spending and reorganization by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It would revitalize a provision last used in 1984 that allows the president to reorganize the federal government. However, Olinsky explained to Newsweek that it differs from the 1984 provision in one significant way. "Those previous reorganization authorities that were granted to the president still had a role for Congress," he said. Congress then had a certain amount of time to either approve or disapprove of the plan, and that determined whether the president's plan could go into effect. "In the current reorganization language, it says that most of the statute that's currently on the books, or that was on the books through 1984, will not apply," Olinsky said. "And it basically says the president can put together a reorganization plan, and as long as it's making government smaller, it is deemed approved. "So, there would be no further review by Congress, no further action. It would simply be automatic. It is approved by this language without [Congress] having seen it first. That is dramatically concerning to me." Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images Olinsky added: "The executive actions that the Trump administration has been taking are absolutely taking Project 2025, the most extreme parts of it, and putting them into effect. And, actually going much further in many cases." Project 2025 says that the president should be able to " employees." It speaks in broad terms about federal employees, whom its authors see as part of the "federal bureaucracy." "Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people, but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government "of, by, and for" the people," Project 2025 says. Olinsky said that people fired as a result of DOGE cuts could continue their suits in court, but anyone fired under the new provision would not have a case against the government. He said the only means of legal recourse for fired employees would be if mass firings reduced the government's ability to monitor enforcement functions. For example, if the White House fired every member of an agency that oversaw labor standards, someone could potentially sue and say their firing undermined government enforcement work. Other critics of this move say it directly undermines Congress' ability to govern, as government spending is one of Congress' primary responsibilities. Olinsky said there is a chance the Senate parliamentarian rules that the provision defies the Byrd Rule, which says that all reconciliation packages have to focus on budget issues and cannot stray into other parts of government. Olinsky believes the provision violates the Byrd Rule, but whether enough members of the Senate and/or the parliamentarian believe the same is "an open question," he said. What People Are Saying Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, told Newsweek: "This [bill] would basically give [Trump] carte blanche to refashion the entire federal government in ways that he likes. "Now, even under this language, it basically means you have to make the government smaller, not larger. But there's a lot of playing you could do to assist with [Trump's] priorities and stifle functions of government that he just doesn't like. "This should be deeply, deeply concerning to anyone." The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: "This provision would reestablish the authority for a president to reorganize government as long as these plans do not result in an increase in federal agencies and the plan does not result in an increase in federal spending." What Happens Next The House does not have a similar rule, so if the provision remains in the Senate version of the bill, it cannot be removed through a parliamentarian complaint to the Bird Rule by the House.