WASHINGTON – In a significant development, two prominent law firms are poised to take legal action on Wednesday, aiming to permanently stop a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. These directives, the firms argue, were crafted with the intent to penalize them and adversely affect their operational capabilities.
The firms in question, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, have mounted a legal challenge against the March orders, terming them as unconstitutional attacks on the legal profession. They contend that these orders endanger their client relationships and are retaliatory, stemming from either their previous legal representations or their association with specific attorneys deemed as adversarial by Trump.
Last month, judiciary actions resulted in the temporary suspension of crucial aspects of these executive orders. However, the law firms are seeking a complete annulment of these directives in court on Wednesday, urging judges to rule them entirely invalid. Another firm, Jenner & Block, is slated to present similar arguments in the following week.
Perkins Coie, through their legal submission in anticipation of the court hearing, stated, “Even though Perkins Coie does not choose to pursue litigation lightly, it was essential to do so to safeguard our ability to effectively serve our clients’ best interests. The Constitution does not permit elected officials, from either political party, to penalize attorneys purely based on their advocacy against political policies, setting a dangerous precedent.”
These executive orders, targeting some of the top-tier law firms in the nation, form part of a comprehensive strategy by Trump to modify the civil landscape and leverage concessions from perceived adversaries. The actions have placed entities like law firms and universities in a difficult position—either resist and potentially face the administration’s wrath or comply with demands to dodge potential sanctions. Some entities have sought judicial recourse, while others have opted for settlements.
Typically, these orders result in similar penalties, such as the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances, constrained access to federal properties, and the cessation of federal contracts.
The initial move against a law firm occurred in February when Trump decreed the suspension of security clearances for lawyers at Covington & Burling. This firm provided legal services to special counsel Jack Smith, who delved into Trump’s activities between his presidencies and managed to secure two now-abandoned indictments.
In the case of Perkins Coie, the executive order scrutinized the firm’s defense of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2016 elections. On the other hand, the order against WilmerHale highlighted the previous partnership of special counsel Robert Mueller with the firm, who investigated Trump’s possible connections to Russia during the 2016 campaign.
Recently, the firm Paul Weiss entered into an agreement with the Trump administration resulting in the retraction of an executive order against it.
Since then, more than half a dozen other firms have negotiated settlements with the White House. These negotiations typically involve commitments to provide pro bono legal services aligned with causes championed by the Trump administration. The firms include Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Milbank; Willkie, Farr & Gallagher; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins LLP; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; and Cadwalader, Taft & Wickersham.