SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pam bondi
DOJ-Boeing Deal Over Deadly Crashes Called 'Utterly Appalling'
"This kind of nonprosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history," said one attorney representing crash victims' families.
May 23, 2025
The Trump administration on Friday faced swift backlash to the U.S. Department of Justice's deal to end a felony case against Boeing that stemmed from a pair of 737 MAX passenger jet crashes that collectively killed 346 people in Ethiopia and Indonesia.
Responses on social media included: "No accountability, no safety, just corruption." "Really gotta feel for the families here. Just awful." "Just utterly appalling that Boeing escape[s] real criminal penalties here. People should have gone to jail." "They don't want to set the precedent that powerful people should have to answer to the public for fucking up."
Some critics also pointed to U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial luxury Boeing plane from the Qatari government, asking: "Is Trump getting another free plane? Is that the deal?"
During the Biden administration, Boeing had agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge and pay a fine of up to $487.2 million over the 2018 and 2019 crashes—a deal that was also criticized by some victims' relatives who wanted a trial. However, at a meeting last Friday, federal prosecutors told families the company's posture changed after a judge rejected the plea agreement in December.
That's according toReuters, which cited unnamed sources. The news agency also shared remarks from families' attorneys:
Paul Cassell, a lawyer for the families, said in a statement the government was intent on dropping the prosecution, saying "they conveyed their preconceived idea that Boeing should be allowed to escape any real consequences for its deadly lies."
Another lawyer representing family members who attended the meeting, Erin Applebaum, said the DOJ's "scripted presentation made it clear that the outcome has already been decided."
Despite Cassell's conclusion, the lawyer wrote to the DOJ on Thursday to argue against the agreement. He wrote that "in this case any further concessions to Boeing would be utterly inappropriate. This case is the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history, as found by" Judge Reed O'Connor in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, who rejected the previous plea deal.
Also on Thursday, U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) urged Attorney General Pam Bondi not to sign an agreement that "would amount to a slap on the wrist, requiring Boeing to pay an additional fine and compensation to the victims' families, and hire an independent compliance consultant, in exchange for dismissal of the criminal fraud charge."
"DOJ must not sign a nonprosecution agreement with Boeing that would allow the company to weasel its way out of accountability for its failed corporate culture, and for any illegal behavior that has resulted in deadly consequences," argued Warren and Blumenthal, respectively the ranking members of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in their letter to Bondi.
"Instead, DOJ should ensure that both the company and the executives that ran it are held accountable for any wrongdoing by thoroughly investigating the potential culpability of Boeing executives and holding criminally accountable any individuals that contributed to or allowed the pursuit of profits over people in violation of federal laws or regulations," they added.
Ignoring those urgings, the DOJ on Friday announced an "agreement in principle" that—if it receives final approval—will cost Boeing more than $1.1 billion, including an additional $445 million for families of those killed on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610. In exchange, the department would dismiss the fraud charge, and the company would not be subject to oversight by an independent monitor.
"Ultimately, in applying the facts, the law, and department policy, we are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome with practical benefits," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "Nothing will diminish the victims' losses, but this resolution holds Boeing financially accountable, provides finality and compensation for the families, and makes an impact for the safety of future air travelers."
While Boeing hasn't commented, Cassell told Reuters that "this kind of nonprosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history. My families will object and hope to convince the court to reject it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gun Reform Groups Warn Trump Admin Settlement on Trigger Device 'Paves the Way for Mass Violence'
Gun violence prevention groups say that the "forced-reset triggers," which allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more quickly, effectively turn rifles into machine guns.
May 18, 2025
The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday announced that it settled litigation centering on "forced-reset triggers," devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire faster, and which gun violence prevention groups warn effectively turn semiautomatic rifles into machine guns.
Some gun reform groups said on Friday that the move effectively legalizes machine guns.
The settlement allows the sale of forced-reset triggers. Under the terms of the settlement, a manufacturer of the device, Rare Breed Triggers, will be allowed to sell the devices but will not be allowed to design them for use in a pistol, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The company also agreed to enforce its patent to ward off infringement.
Under former President Joe Biden, some of the devices were classified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in 2022 as machine guns, which are illegal under federal law.
In 2023, the DOJ sued Rare Breed Triggers, leading to a ruling that blocked the company from selling the devices. Separately, the National Association for Gun Rights sued over the DOJ's classification of the devices as machine guns. Last year, a federal judge ruled in favor of the National Association for Gun Rights and struck down the ban.
According to the Friday announcement from the DOJ, the settlement resolves both of those cases, which were on appeal.
Brady, a gun violence prevention group, condemned the settlement and said in a statement on Friday that it "benefits the gun industry, circumvents gun laws, and paves the way for mass violence."
"The Trump Administration's secret settlement with the gun lobby to permit the sale of Forced Reset Triggers will turn already deadly firearms into weapons of mass destruction," said Kris Brown, the president of Brady. "This dangerous backroom deal is not only an astonishing abuse of power, but undermines decades of sensible government gun safety policy and puts whole communities at immediate serious risk."
"The Trump administration has just effectively legalized machine guns. Lives will be lost because of his actions," said Vanessa Gonzalez, vice president of government and political affairs at Giffords, another gun violence prevention group.
"This move puts our communities in danger. Machine guns have no place on our streets," wrote the group Everytown for Gun Safety on Friday.
The settlement aligns with an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump in February, which directed the attorney general to look at orders, guidance, and other actions by entities in the executive branch to "assess any ongoing infringements" of rights under the Second Amendment.
"This Department of Justice believes that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right," said Attorney General Pam Bondi in a statement on Friday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Lawyers Behaving Badly
The White House attorneys who drafted Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law firms—and the Justice Department lawyers trying to defend them—should consider the oath they took to defend the Constitution.
May 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation,” including legal filings for improper purposes and statements that are not based on evidence.
Bondi should start with the White House attorneys who drafted Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law firms—and her Justice Department lawyers trying to defend them.
Did Real Lawyers Write These Orders?
Cloaked in empty rhetoric about “conduct detrimental to critical American interests,” retribution is at the core of Trump’s edicts.
For example, the only detailed rationale for Trump’s Jenner & Block order was the firm’s association with Andrew Weissmann, who returned to the firm in 2020 after completing his work for Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the Trump-Russia investigation. Other than the Weissmann diatribe, Trump’s order merely recited vague and unsupported assertions about alleged “partisan ‘lawfare,’” “abuse of its pro bono practice,” and “racial discrimination.”
But on that basis, Trump directed all federal agencies to: 1) limit the entire firm’s engagement with federal employees; 2) limit the entire firm’s access to federal buildings; 3) suspend the entire firm’s security clearances; 4) terminate the firm’s government contracts; and 5) require all government contractors to disclose any business that they do with Jenner—with an eye toward terminating those contracts as well.
Zealous advocacy on behalf of any client—even the president of the United States—has limits.
Four law firms have challenged Trump’s similar orders. In stark language, four separate federal courts have granted immediate relief:
- “Disturbing”
- “It sends little chills down my spine.”
- “It threatens to significantly undermine our entire legal system and the ability of all people to access justice.”
- “There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.”
- “The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power.”
In three recent hearings, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson—Bondi’s longtime Florida colleague and Trump loyalist—struggled to answer judges’ basic questions about the orders targeting Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block:
- Do law firms have to make deals with Trump to avoid executive orders?
- “I can’t speak to that.”
- Are the deals in writing?
- “I have not been privy to this.”
- Has Trump achieved $1 billion in deals yet?
- “I do not know.”
When Lawson argued that Trump could target Jenner because it “discriminates against its employees based on race,” U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, snapped back, “Give me a break.”
In fairness to Lawson, Trump and his White House attorneys who wrote the orders hadn’t given him much to work with.
Jenner: A Case Study
Take a closer look at Jenner’s claims, followed by selected highlights of the government’s 37-page response:
The First Amendment:
- Prohibits retaliatory actions for protected speech and viewpoint discrimination;
- Bars government interference with a client’s right to associate; and
- Prevents the government from imposing unconstitutional conditions on access to government services and benefits.
The government says that Trump was just exercising his free speech rights. It asserts that Jenner’s lawsuit “carries with it a dangerous risk of muzzling the Executive.” The government also argues that Jenner’s speech is not protected insofar as it “consists of employment practices involving racial discrimination [favoring women and minorities].”
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee a litigant the unfettered right to the effective assistance of counsel of his or her choice.
The government says that: 1) clients (not law firms) have to assert such claims; 2) any impact of barring Jenner from federal buildings or its clients from federal contracts is speculative; and 3) Trump’s order does not violate those rights in any event.
Due Process is required before the government can deprive a person of liberty or property interests. It requires notice of the claims, clarity about their meaning, and the opportunity to be heard before the deprivation occurs. None of that occurred. The resulting harm, including damage to the firm’s reputation, was immediate and ongoing.
The government says that: 1) the order is sufficiently clear; 2) it has not yet harmed the firm; and 3) the firm will receive any required notice before the order actually injures it.
Equal Protection requires the government to treat similarly-situated entities similarly or, at a minimum, have a rational basis for failing to do so.
The government insists that Jenner is not being singled out for unfair treatment.
The Constitution’s Separation of Powers prohibits Trump from acting as accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. But he wore all of those hats in his executive order.
The government says that Trump’s order is an appropriate exercise of presidential power.
Attention All Trump Lawyers: It’s Time for a Gut Check
Zealous advocacy on behalf of any client—even the president of the United States—has limits. Upon admission to the bar, every attorney swears an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and to uphold the rule of law. A code of professional ethics requires any legal argument to be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument” for changing it. Attorneys must ensure that their statements about facts are “reasonably based” on evidentiary support.
Trump’s retaliatory orders seek to intimidate lawyers and law firms into submission and thereby undermine the legal system. His own conduct refutes his lawyers’ contrary arguments. As other firms have capitulated, pledged “political neutrality,” and collectively committed to provide almost $1 billion in free legal services to Trump-designated causes, his executive orders’ stated concerns about those firms’ “conduct detrimental to critical American interests” miraculously disappeared.
Trump even boasted, “And I agree they’ve done nothing wrong. But what the hell—they give me a lot of money, considering.”
In one of the many amicus briefs supporting Jenner’s challenge, more than 800 law firms—including Deputy Associate Attorney General Lawson’s former firm, Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips—urged that Trump’s executive order “should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles.”
“But something even more fundamental is at stake… [Trump’s] Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”
I don’t know what Trump’s lawyers see when they look into a mirror. But I know this: History will not be kind to them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular