If the mob were doing what President Donald Trump is doing, we’d call it a shakedown. By way of several executive orders, he has accused some of the largest law firms in America of unlawful misconduct and, on his own, determined they violated the law and issued punishment. But if the firms capitulate to his demands, they won’t be punished.

Joining us in this discussion is our friend and fellow lawyer, Jim Meaney.

The targeted firms are guilty of simply representing causes Trump can’t stand and represent some of the largest businesses in America, many of which do business with the federal government. These firms are given a choice: either do legal work for free—for groups that Trump likes—or be barred from entering federal buildings and lose their security clearances, while the government terminates its contract with their clients.

What’s the misconduct? Trump accuses the Paul Weiss firm of engaging in “harmful activity,” Perkins Cioe firm of “dangerous and dishonest activity,” and Susman Godfrey of working to “degrade the quality of American elections.”

What did Paul Weiss do? A partner in the firm brought suit against the individuals who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Perkins Coie represented the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox Corp.

What’s going on here is part of a much bigger plan—a unified attack on everything Trump hates. He is attacking universities and free thought. He is attacking the judiciary by approving the idea of impeaching judges who have ruled against his immigration policies. He’s dismantling multiple federal agencies.

At last count, nine firms have capitulated and struck deals with Trump. Four have filed suit in federal court and attacked his executive orders and have been successful in the early stages of litigation. In street parlance, we have nine “cavers” and four “fighters.”

The issue is, don't law firms have an obligation to see beyond themselves, to see beyond their own interest, and to see beyond their clients’ interests when the system itself is at risk? Nine firms have said no. Four have said yes.

Almost 200,000 Franklin County residents experience poverty every year. That’s enough to fill the Ohio State University football stadium twice. These residents face myriad challenges, among them: medical debt, lack of access to healthcare, adequate and affordable housing, and affordable childcare.

Danielle Sidner, CEO of Rise Together Innovation Institute, explains that RISE is on a mission to harness the collective power of people and systems to overcome structural racism in Franklin County that contribute to poverty. RISE was created by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners and business and community stakeholders and seeks to achieve equity for everyone.

Danielle talks with us about the challenges low-income residents face, but let’s look at just one issue here: medical debt. Low-income residents are ham-strung by medical debt they can’t afford to pay, and for fear of incurring more, they don’t see a doctor when they need to, which means they end up having worse health outcomes. And, of course, not seeing a doctor can mean an illness, which means time away from work and the loss of employment.

During the pandemic, we saw many organizations coming together and looking at innovative ways to relieve some of this debt. Locally, the Ohio Hospital Association in collaboration with the City of Columbus and some others, helped pay the medical debt of low-income residents and then forgave the debt.

Based on a study by Kaiser Permanente, once individuals are relieved of that debt, they go back to the doctor and then live healthier lives. They can contribute to society in the way that we all desire. But the process of medical forgiveness is largely a function of nonprofits, and while it works well for a limited number of people, it’s not a solution that remedies problems with our healthcare system

Want to learn more about RISE? Visit its website at https://www.rtiico.org/

President Trump has signed more executive orders in his first 10 days and in his first month in office than any recent president has in their first 100 days. Trump critics say the orders greatly exceed his constitutional authority.

Those orders range from tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada, to pauses on foreign aid and crackdowns on illegal immigration to bans on transgender people serving in the military and the use of federal funds for gender-affirming medical care for minors.

Court challenges to Trump’s policies started on Inauguration Day and have continued at a furious pace since Jan. 20. The administration is facing some 70 lawsuits nationwide challenging his executive orders and moves to downsize the federal government.

The Republican-controlled Congress is putting up little resistance, so the court system is ground zero for pushback. Judges have issued more than a dozen orders at least temporarily blocking aspects of Trump’s agenda, ranging from an executive order to end U.S. citizenship extended automatically to people born in this country to giving Musk’s team access to sensitive federal data.

Executive Actions: 108, Executive Orders: 73, Proclamations: 23, Memorandums: 12

Mark Brown, Constitutional Law expert and professor at Capital University Law School talks with us about the constitutionality of executive orders. Mark holds Capital's Newton D. Baker/Baker & Hostetler Chair. He joined the faculty in 2003 after having taught at Stetson University, the University of Illinois and The Ohio State University.

Mark has authored and co-authored works in various books and academic journals, including the Boston College Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the Hastings Law Journal, the Iowa Law Review, the University of Illinois Law Review, the Ohio State Law Journal, the American University Law Review, and the Oregon Law Review, as well as others. Prior to academia, Mark clerked for the Honorable Harry Wellford, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He also served as a Supreme Court Fellow under the Chief Justice of the United States during the 1993 October Term.

Mark's research interests include Constitutional Law and Constitutional Litigation, courses he also teaches. He has also taught Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure. His public interest litigation presently focuses on public access to the political process.