>> Hello and thanks for joining us on Chicago tonight.

I'm Brandis Friedman.

Here's what we're looking at.

Some big law firms are fighting back as President Trump is targeting offices whose advocacy clients or attorneys he dislikes.

>> Hold our tax dollars.

That is how terrorist behave.

>> And a war of words between Chicago's mayor and the White House escalating a spotlight politics team on that and more.

>> And now to some of today's top stories.

Former President Joe Biden is making a return to the national stage tonight right here in Chicago at this hour, Biden is speaking at the National Conference of Advocates, Counselors and Representatives for the disabled in River north.

He's focusing on the health of Social Security in his speech as the Trump administration has planned to lay off 7,000 workers and impose tighter identity proofing measures for recipients.

Typically immediate past President pro pro filed which Biden has largely done until now.

Outgoing Chicago Public Schools, CEO Pedro Martinez is up for the top education job in Massachusetts.

He's been named one of 3 finalists for the position of commissioner of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

He and the others interview for the job in a public board meeting on Thursday.

Martinez has been the head of CPS since he was appointed by then Mayor Lori Lightfoot in 2021.

But he was terminated without cause by the Van appointed school board in December.

The terms of his contract allowed him to remain on the job until June.

And if you haven't already filed your taxes today is the deadline.

The IRS says it's already received more than 100 million returns.

But the agency is expecting 10's of millions more today.

So if you're hearing this and panicking, don't worry, you can still file until 11:59PM.

tonight or submit an automatic six-month filing extension.

You can check out our website for instructions on how to do that.

And other last-minute tips.

If you don't file and haven't requested an extension, you may be subject to a penalty.

Plus interest.

Up next, the Trump administration goes after big legal firms.

We explore the constitutional questions that raises.

>> Chicago tonight is made possible in part why the Alexander and John Nichols family.

The gym and Tay maybe family.

The Pope Brothers Foundation.

And the support of these donors.

>> Some of the nation's largest law firms have recently been faced with a stark choice, cooperate with the Trump administration or face punitive executive orders.

As of Friday, 5 more big law firms gave in to President Trump's demands committing to provide 600 million dollars in pro bono legal work for the administration.

That means President Trump has now secured commitments for almost 1 billion dollars worth of free legal help from the country's most powerful law firms.

Meanwhile, several firms including Chicago based Jenner and block are choosing to oppose the administration's demands.

Joining us now to examine some of the constitutional issues.

This raises or Harold Current longtime former dean constitutional law specialist in now professor of law at Chicago, can't College of Law.

And joining us via Zoom is David Applegate lawyer with Williams, Barbara and Monroe and member of the Libertarian in conservative-leaning Federalist Society.

Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us.

Errol, do want to start with, you to start with you first.

Please is legal to use executive orders to target law firms that have displease.

The president and several courts have already held that this is unconstitutional.

And I think it's clearly unconstitutional.

>> David probably agree should at least on 2 grounds know, first that it's a violation of the First Amendment because impeach free speech speech.

The messages you speak out against administration is going to be retaliation.

Very serious retaliation.

And second of all, it impedes people's abilities to get an attorney.

You know, you're not going to be able to get people to.

Represent you in immigration or other contacts against administration for fear of reprisals.

So on both grounds, I would predict that this would go down before the courts.

And we're really troubles me about this is how brazen news.

It's not the President Trump wasn't trying to hide anything said because you were against me in some other context.

I'm going to punish That's frightening.

And some of those contacts include, you know, hiring people who worked for his up a little more representative of his political opponents among others.

>> I'm David Applegate similar question to you.

What kind of constitutional issues do you think this raises?

>> I think it raises exactly the ones that Carol, this brought in its general.

He's argued its lawsuit.

It also raises equal protection and due process.

Arguments because the essential elements of due process or no to sitting here one might try to argue somewhat cleverly that.

Well, we we issued one of these against a lot from before week issued the executive gets years.

So you are sort of notice because rich doing same things that which we disapprove.

But I don't think any court is going to buy is is chair points out very There's been absolutely no kind of hearing any of the factual issues that are being asserted such as who is employed by whom who took what positions those sorts of things.

so I I have to agree with Harold here that raises serious First Amendment issues.

It raises serious right to counsel issues.

It raises dare.

I say it both substantive and procedural due process issues as well as some equal protection issues.

>> David, what might be the potential impact, you know, on a law firm's bottom line, really on their business if they're shut out of government work and government contracts.

>> So the bottom line could be a quite severe.

It is general points out that there it leaves 2 aspects to this.

One is the ability to represent clients their choice with the clients haven't legal counsel of their choice, which can deprive firms that.

The revenue soars and the second is a rather clever, but somewhat disingenuous argument that the time spent responding to these executive orders is time that cannot be spent the unpaid include.

it's interesting to note that according to Bloomberg at least the the reached agreements with the administration have roughly twice the profits per partner of the firms that have No, that's historical.

The forward-looking.

That's a Sara Lee.

But big law firms are big business with revenues in the billions of dollars in expenses to minutes in the inability to represent clients before the government or suing government because you can't have access to government buildings and were security clearances.

It can make a dramatic difference improve spa number.

>> The president's attack on law firms it's also caused some divisions within the legal profession within the law firms themselves.

Some of those firms, as we've discussed, they've acquiesced to administration's demands.

Others are fighting back.

As David mentioned, the general block argument.

Harrold, what conversations are these firms having when they're weighing the factors and figuring out how to respond?

It's nobody envies the situation of law firms, right?

They have potential be shut out of the government market.

>> Also, I want to add that the president's executive orders also threatens vengeance against anybody who does business with those law firms.

And so it's hard to get Klein's if you're being threatened by the Fed federal government.

So on the one hand and in addition, executive order says that that the members of the law from the lawyers should believe a law firm can't even get federal government to work afterwards.

So for all these pressures on the law firm, on the one hand, on other hand, it's what their and integrity doing.

What you believe.

And there's a price to pay for that as we've been talking about.

So it's not an easy decision.

And obviously law firms are divided to going both ways to twice as many law firms now have have the settlement agreement and then have decided to for have sued.

I think this will come to an end relatively quickly because I think to the will, of course, will be unanimous in saying this goes way beyond the pale and this activity by the president is clearly unconstitutional.

>> Now, as of Friday, Trump is secured almost a billion dollars worth of free legal services, as we mentioned from some of, you know, one of the most powerful law firms in the country.

Does that raise legal concerns?

The the agreements themselves, Carol?

Indian.

>> One way, yes, when we know I mean, most of the agreements for pro Bono, I think we are causes that everybody can agree with helping veterans first responders.

And I think that will be efforts by the law firms to put to good use.

But other hand, the these agreements themselves are process.

Of course.

And there's an imbalance of power.

The federal government opposes law firms.

Even the law firms are sophisticated.

And it's possible that even these agreements may be subject to being overturned in the courts, sort of contract adhesion because it's simply unfair.

>> Similar question to David, because some of the firms, as as Harold mentioned, they have said that yes will agree to doing this pro bono work because their issues, you know, that we share the same interest as the administration is that reason enough to make a deal if you're already doing that work, then just do that work rather than make a deal.

Is that how do you read that?

>> Both your position Brand says obviously it fairly straightforward argument.

you're going to you're going to do it.

But at least one of the settling a Paul Weiss issued statement, get it according to saying what we're doing is entirely consistent with our statement of principle set down over 60 years ago because we are made no maintaining by affirmative efforts the membership of partners reflecting a wide variety of clients with a wide variety of interests.

We don't just take the popular causes on one side or the other, we're doing work know against illegal immigration, a upholding veteran's rights Errol, this pension and even supporting the administration's?

position that there are only 2 that there's one little interesting aspect here that I've not heard discussed that is slightly clever.

But I do think it's gonna make this pass muster is that if you read the executive orders carefully, they say consistent with existing to the extent consistent with the that this executive order Klice is all that And I agree, I think the courts are going to find fairly quickly that that these are not consistent with the law and the Constitution.

>> And to that point, you know, are these agreements even legally binding?

We've got Crain's Chicago Business reporting just this afternoon that Chicago based Kirkland Ellis were Kirkland and Ellis, which did make a deal with the administration that didn't have anything in writing that this agreement was pretty announced on truth.

Social, the president's social media.

If there's nothing in writing.

>> Contracts can be or on the same subject to statute frauds, which has a for a variety exceptions to it.

I think the stronger argument here would be heroes argument of contracts he shouldn't done under coercion, but it but it's a love for generally was to say we value the ability to represent the clients.

We represent detained, the fees that we obtained and the positions that the administration is asking support in a country That's not necessarily coercion in a legal sense, although certainly looks like it on the face of it.

>> What if what if the courts, Harold, should say these deals aren't binding, they're not enforceable and the wrong for various and sundry reasons.

Should we be about the administration actually doing what the court says as he seems to not be dealing with regards to some deportations.

So that's the inflection point.

You know what's going to happen with the series of questions like Salvador with Garcia was being taken.

>> They're against his will administration not wanting to return even though he's been or 2.

What if the administration doesn't follow a court order?

That's when you get the constitutional crisis.

It's simmering now.

I hope it doesn't flare up, but it certainly could, because in this case and the cases of immigration in other contexts, the when the administration doesn't like what the courts say, what are they going to OK?

And that was my next question.

Are we on course for a full blown full-blown constitutional crisis?

We're going to talk about that next time.

You all are both because I'm sure that will be more to discuss.

Harold current David Applegate, thanks to both.

>> Bush greatness.

Up next, Mayor Johnson's choice words for the president or spotlight politics team on that and much more right after this.

Tensions between President Donald Trump and Mayor Brandon Johnson are escalating.

Meanwhile, Chicago police progress meeting towards meeting consent decree goals and prosecutors rest their case.

And Senator Emil Jones, the 3rd federal corruption trial here with all that and more a spotlight.

Politics team header, Sharon Burg.

Welcome back.

Team.

So let's start with this and tough talk from Mayor Johnson for the president today.

>> Trying to force year will.

To break the spirit of working people in order to have a conversation.

That's terrorism.

We're not going negotiate with tears.

>> And of course, that was at a city hall news conference The mayor talking about the president's efforts to strip federal funding from cities like Chicago with laws on the books to protect undocumented immigrants, saying that it amounts to terrorism.

Heather, did the mayor called the president a terrorist?

He did not, but he made it clear that this that he finds it inappropriate that the president has linked almost 4 billion dollars in federal aid to the city with the city's protections to undocumented immigrants.

Essentially what Trump has been saying since he took office in his second term is that if we can, if the city continues to protect undocumented immigrants by.

>> Forbidding Chicago police officers from helping federal immigration agents that we will lose that money.

He says it's a clear, clear sense all of them all up of extortion.

>> Okay.

So let's keep it going because it's taken since 2022. to get to this point.

But the corruption trial of state Sen Emil Jones a 3rd of its move quickly since it started a week ago.

What is the latest?

It has.

This was not the epic length Madigan that I think, you know, certainly journalists and jurors might have been worried that it would be prosecutors rested their case today.

And the defense has started to take up.

>> Their arguments in court, we found out today that Senator Jones will be testifying in his own defense.

In fact, he began that testimony for an hour or 2 this afternoon before the judge broke for the day.

Defense attorneys, you know, doing some table setting into trying to go through his life story a little bit helps.

You know, folks on the jury know a little bit more about him, how he got to be where he is today.

Obviously he comes from political family with his father, the former Senate president.

But prosecutors were really trying to hammer home their points in their final moments.

You know, saying that the way that Jones represented himself in an interview with FBI agents did not comport to the information that was recorded on a wire by the former executive of a red light speed camera company you know, Jones is accused of asking for a bride asking for a job with an intern for an intern rather.

You know, he spoke with the FBI, you know, initially the same day as raid on the offices of the, you know, at the state capitol or Senator Martin Sandoval.

Yeah, he kind of walked it back.

He said he said a slow walk to learn, you know, kind of check to soft pedal.

I should say what the actual conversations that he was You know, it being involved in worship anyhow.

This is his chance to present a defense.

Obviously always a huge risk to take the stand in your own defense.

And he's taking that chance.

Yeah, well, and it's the kind of thing that you think.

One of the big issues in many of these corruption cases is the allegations themselves but be lying to the feds which he is accused of doing.

So I think could be a key opportunity from his defense attorneys you know, standpoint here to try explain some of that.

>> Heather, a city council expected to approve a 32 million dollar settlement tomorrow that will exhaust the city's entire police misconduct budget for the year.

You asked the mayor for his thoughts on that today.

>> We have inherited.

Quite the mess.

Many of these cases that were referring to happened, you know, decades ago.

>> So head or any sign that the city is going to take a approach in resolving these lawsuits?

Well, I asked the mayor that and he deferred to corporation counsel Mary Richardson, Lowery, who said, you know, look, when we look at all of these cases and that we've created a new division to look specifically at the cases that involved 3 Chicago police officers, former Chicago police officer to of uncontested records of misconduct.

And that's former commander Jon Purge.

Former detector Ronaldo Guevara and former Sergeant Ronald Watts.

And she said it's really not possible to do a settlement of all of those lawsuits which total more than 200 because all of those plaintiffs are represented by different defense attorneys.

Now, I've spoken with some of those defense attorneys who say, well, we can play well together.

Our goal is to sort of resolve this for our clients.

It's clear that the city doesn't see that an option, which means that the city is going to actually have to sort of deal with these cases case by case by case and ultimate toll to taxpayers is is really sort you know, astronomical.

Now.

Tomorrow City Council meeting Albert Gilbert Villegas is going to sort of try to use a parliamentary maneuver to put the Johnson administration on on the spot and forced them to come back before the city council to serve.

Answer questions about this is really the best strategy with often involves paying millions of dollars to private lawyers to defend these officers to fight those records of misconduct, whether he gets anywhere, that's going to be an open question when you have to imagine from the perspective of the attorneys representing all those, you know, alleged torture victims.

>> You know, they have to look at this and say if the city's going case by case by case, is that going to delay any resolution, any sort of restitution made to my clients?

So you know that the idea that this needs to be handled one by one, certainly, you know, those folks, it's in their interest to play well together, its and their clients interests.

One has to imagine in terms of trying to get a speedy resolution to these cases that have already dragged on for decades.

So many of So Nick, also public transit facing a bit of a fiscal crisis itself.

though, the into the legislative session in Springfield, fast approaching today, the regional Transportation Authority.

>> Held the solutions summit downtown.

Did anything.

What came of that?

Well, we don't necessarily have a final solution final resolution.

But know there was obviously a lot of conversation about this looming 771 million dollar fiscal cliff for the region's 3 transit systems.

That's >> set to hit next year.

When COVID relief money runs out.

It was interesting that actually had a couple of leaders from some of their peer agencies, one of the agencies it oversees Bay Area Transit and the head of Wilmot in Washington, D.C., who have faced a lot of the similar sort of structural problems that CTA, Metra, pace, RTA are dealing with.

And there was a lot of conversation about the fact that, you know, the end of the legislative session is very fast approaching.

And if they don't have a resolution for that fiscal crisis, they're going to have to start some legally mandated procedures to kind of game play out what these cuts, what these fare hikes, all these different things, what they might be like, what the effect on passengers would So there really does seem to be a growing sense of urgency both with, you know, folks in the room, folks in Springfield.

Now, there was, you know, we did hear some some confidence from transit leaders that their message is getting through and it was interesting to, you know, a lot of this.

They've talked about the the impact of all these different cuts, the things they could do with extra funding, acting CTA, president nor leaders and went out of her way to say today one of the things we need to talk about his equity, you know, Chicago is you know, de facto very segregated city because of redlining and racial covenants, better transit access is a way to address those sorts of inequity.

So she was and it was very interesting to hear her make a pitch, not just on the service side, not you know, the economic impact of transit on the region, but saying, you know, to political leaders and transit advocates in the room, this is a way to address some wrongs of the past.

All right, Heather, updating the police consent decree Friday, an independent monitor filing its latest report.

I think the 11th >> CPD has made some progress.

That's right.

So the last report showed that the CPD was just a 9% compliance, full compliance with the port there.

Now at 16% compliance.

>> And that is the largest jump between 6 month period since the consent decree went into effect 6 years ago.

Now, what change really was concentrated in the area of the consensus, consent decree that governs use-of-force.

A lot of the sort of requirements mean that the police department has several way to sort of track every time that officers used force and they are now doing a full job of doing that.

According to the monitors.

>> Now, Larry Snelling says the superintendent that this is a reflection of how hard he has worked since taking office nearly a year and a half ago to really prioritize doing the consent decree, right?

Not rushing through it.

>> However, it's been 6 years and there are a lot of questions about whether the police department will sort of get this just sort of closer to full compliance because as I've reported before this reach agreement really requires the police department to be restructured and that is a huge lift and it will require the completion of an ongoing study about where and by officers are deployed.

There has to be a system that will flag officers who are the subject of multiple and lawsuits.

Not to mention that and they have to sort of do a better job of making sure that officers who engage in this conduct or even make mistakes are either retrained or disciplined, OK, and hopefully we'll take another 6 years to make 16% more.

I'll be here in the All right now there's Roenicke Wimberg Thanksgiving.

Thank you.

>> And we're back to wrap things up right after this.

And that's our show for this Tuesday night.

Stay connected with our reporters.

These folks out what they're working on by following us on Instagram at W T Tw Chicago.

>> And join us tomorrow night at 5, 30 10.

We're one-on-one with Chicago Teachers Union president Stacy Davis.

Gates about the now ratified contract and the historic road it took to get their now for all of us here at Chicago tonight and bring treatment.

Thanks for watching.

Stay healthy and safe and have a good night.

>> Closed captioning is made possible by Robert a cliff.

And for personal injury law