Two More Law Firms Targeted by Trump File Lawsuits Against His ‘Unprecedented and Unconstitutional’ Executive Orders
AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Since the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting multiple BigLaw firms by name. Some of those firms have caved, like Paul Weiss and now today Skadden Arps, offering swift compliance with Trump’s decrees and millions of dollars of pro bono legal work to appease the presidential fury. But some are digging in their heels and refusing to yield, even filing lawsuits to defend their rights.
Trump’s executive orders have targeted firms that represented prominent Democratic clients like Hillary Clinton or hired former federal prosecutors that investigated him or worked on the criminal cases he was facing before he won re-election, using language accusing them of being “dishonest” and a “dangerous” risk to national security.
Sanctions Trump’s orders have sought to impose include stripping the security clearances of the firms’ attorneys and staff (critically important for certain types of federal legal cases), terminating contracts the firms had with federal agencies, barring the firms’ employees from federal buildings (again, a major obstacle for the lawyers to represent their clients), demanding firms abolish diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and programs, and threatening additional civil and criminal investigations against the firms.
Perkins Coie was the first targeted firm to file a lawsuit, and so far was able to get a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of a significant part of the executive order against them, with U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Powell ruling that the executive order was likely unconstitutional. This week, Howell denied a Trump administration motion to disqualify her, in a sharply-worded ruling that denounced the motion as mere “speculation” and “innuendo” and as showing a “clear absence of any legitimate basis for disqualification.”
On Friday, two more firms joined Perkins Coie on the front lines of this battle against the White House, filing their own lawsuits staunchly defending their First Amendment rights and rights to defend their clients.
Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Daniel Barnes reported on the two new complaints filed on behalf of Jenner & Block LLP and Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale). Following the old adage that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, both firms retained outside counsel for this litigation — Cooley LLP and veteran Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement, respectively.
The Jenner & Block complaint argues that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional for its threats to the law firm, its clients, and the legal system as a whole, as it constitutes an attempt to “punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate.”
Likewise, the lawsuit filed for WilmerHale calls Trump’s “sweeping attack” on the law firms “unprecedented and unconstitutional.” Added Clement in the complaint, “The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale, its employees, and its clients to speak freely, petition the courts and other government institutions, and associate with the counsel of their choice without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials.”
Trump is likely to be enraged by one early development in this litigation: Judge Howell, who has already drawn the president’s ire for ruling against his administration’s motions in the Perkins Coie case, has been assigned to the Jenner & Block lawsuit as well. The Politico article noted that this was “a typical federal court practice linking cases that are rooted in the same set of facts and legal issues,” and it was “likely” Howell would be assigned to the WilmerHale case too.
Read the Jenner & Block complaint here, and Declaration in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order here, and the WilmerHale complaint here.
