Two major law firms fighting President Trump’s assault on their business will appear in court on Wednesday with the aim of putting a decisive end to his retribution campaign against them.
The two firms, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, have asked the courts to permanently block executive orders issued by Mr. Trump declaring them a national security risk, which curtails their ability to do high-level legal work. The firms, which have clients and employ lawyers whom Mr. Trump opposes politically, have argued that the orders are so blatantly unconstitutional that no trial is necessary.
The judges presiding over their cases, Beryl A. Howell and Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court in Washington, are under no obligation to act immediately after the hearings on Wednesday. But the legal community is intensely interested in how these two cases proceed, after the president’s executive orders and threats caused a deep rift of the world of elite corporate firms.
“Simply put, blacklisting and sanctioning law firms for representing the president’s political opponents, devoting resources to causes the president dislikes or hiring attorneys who have investigated the president is anathema to our constitutional order,” attorneys representing WilmerHale wrote in a filing requesting the speedy resolution of the case.
The government has asked that the lawsuits be dismissed, arguing that the orders were all within the president’s authority, and an expression of political speech.
Perkins Coie and WilmerHale were singled out in March by Mr. Trump for punishment with individualized executive orders, owing largely to past legal work on behalf of clients opposing Mr. Trump and policies he had championed. Among other things, the orders directed federal agencies not to contract with the firms or permit their staff into federal buildings, and to suspend security clearances held by their attorneys.
Both firms had been involved in investigations concerning Russian disinformation during the 2016 election, and the question of whether Russian influence had been designed to benefit Mr. Trump’s campaign. And both noted in court filings that the president himself had said repeatedly that he had singled them out specifically because of their previous clients.
“The president openly proclaims that he is targeting WilmerHale for representing his political opponents in election-related litigation, challenging his immigration-enforcement policies, associating with his perceived enemies (including a special counsel appointed by the president’s own Justice Department) and defending a client’s race-conscious college admission policies,” lawyers representing WilmerHale wrote.
As it became clear that the White House was poised to retaliate against firms that had tangled with Mr. Trump in the past, a host of top legal firms raced to cut deals with the president, offering to do hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of free legal work on behalf of charitable causes, in exchange for avoiding persecution. To avoid attracting the president’s ire, none of the 10 largest firms by revenue initially signed onto a legal brief expressing support for Perkins Coie, after it became the first firm subject to an order.
Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, as well as Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, two other firms targeted by Mr. Trump that chose to fight in court, have already been granted temporary injunctions stopping the orders from taking effect while litigation proceeds.
Following those rulings, Attorney General Pam Bondi began distributing memos to federal agencies noting that the earlier request that agencies comb through their books and disclose any relationship with Perkins Coie or other law firms was no longer in effect.
The memo nonetheless reiterated that the government considered the court’s order “erroneous” and the terms of Mr. Trump’s executive order “permissible.”
“The government reserves the right to take all necessary and legal actions in response to the ‘dishonest and dangerous’ conduct of Perkins Coie,” it said.
Since the courts have appeared at least initially receptive to the law firms that have challenged Mr. Trump’s order, some in the legal world have rallied behind them in their battle against the White House.
After Perkins Coie filed its lawsuit in March, more than 500 firms promptly filed a brief in support. The group has also received supporting briefs from a group of 363 law professors and a coalition of leading legal groups describing themselves as “from across the ideological spectrum,” including the Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union.
This month, a group of bar associations from across the country also threw their support behind the firm, arguing in a brief that the order targeting the firm was an obvious intimidation tactic by the White House and warning of damage to the legal profession.
“The order is not only blatantly illegal; it is a naked attempt to instill fear in the legal profession and intimidate lawyers into submission, thereby co-opting the bar to be subservient to the executive branch, undermining the judiciary’s ability to check executive power and striking at the heart of the rule of law,” the bar associations’ brief said. “The court should grant plaintiff’s requested relief and enjoin this executive order to limit the chilling effects on the legal profession.”
Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the U.S. Department of Education, the White House and federal courts.
The post Big Law Firms Fighting Trump’s Blacklist Seek Quick and Permanent Relief appeared first on New York Times.
