More than 500 law firms in the United States have rallied in support of Perkins Coie LLP, one of several legal offices that have been targeted under the administration of President Donald Trump.
In an amicus brief filed on Friday, the law firms accused the Trump administration of pursuing a campaign of “draconian punishment” against legal professionals who represent people and causes the president frowns upon.
“Any controversial representation challenging actions of the current administration (or even causes it disfavors) now brings with it the risk of devastating retaliation,” the brief states.
“Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create.”
Perkins Coie is one of at least four major law firms that Trump has targeted with executive orders. They include WilmerHale, Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block.
The executive orders included broad accusations, including that the law firms participated in the “destruction of bedrock American principles” and “conduct detrimental to critical American interests”.
As punishment, the executive orders seek to revoke the security clearances needed for high-stakes cases involving sensitive information, as well as block the law firms’ personnel from entering federal buildings like courthouses.
Each of the law firms targeted represented a cause or person Trump has spoken against.
In the case of Perkins Coie, the president cited the law firm’s work on behalf of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who ran against Trump in the 2016 presidential race.
WilmerHale, meanwhile, was singled out for hiring Robert Mueller, a lawyer who formerly served as the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). During Trump’s first term, Mueller was brought on as a special counsel at the Justice Department to investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election – a probe that Trump opposed.
Friday’s amicus brief argues that Trump seeks to “cow” these law firms – and smaller firms by extension – “into submission”.
It pointed out that yanking security clearances and denying access to federal buildings “would threaten the survival of any law firm”, not to mention scare away clients.
Already, multiple law offices have negotiated a deal with the Trump administration – either to lift such sanctions or to avoid them being imposed in the first place.
On March 20, six days after the executive order against it, the New York-based law firm Paul Weiss was the first to capitulate.
On social media, the president announced that the firm had agreed to offer “$40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives”, in exchange for lifting the executive order.
Other firms have followed suit. Skadden, Milbank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher – three major law offices – each offered to do $100m in “pro bono legal services” for Trump’s preferred causes. Some associates at those firms have since resigned from their positions in protest.
But Perkins Coie is among the law offices fighting Trump’s executive orders, calling them unconstitutional violations of free speech and the right to due process before the law.
WilmerHale and Jenner & Block have also launched their own legal challenges.
In the amicus brief for Perkins Coie, the 500-plus law firms echoed the arguments underpinning those challenges. They slammed the Trump administration’s executive order as a threat to the right of every individual to seek protection in the law.
“Those Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself,” the brief said. “The judiciary should act with resolve – now – to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases.”
It pointed out that law firms like Perkins Coie employ lawyers and experts from across the political spectrum.
Notably, the brief comes two days after the libertarian Cato Institute filed its own amicus brief in the case, alongside the American Civil Liberties Union.
Friday’s petition even cited the fact that a “founding father” of the US, John Adams, represented on cases that were unpopular – defending, for example, British colonists who fired upon US civilians.
It explained that Adams did so because he believed in the right to equal justice under the law.
“Until now, it would have been inconceivable that a law firm would risk punitive retribution from the federal government for undertaking representations of this kind,” the brief explained.
It called upon the federal court system to place a permanent injunction on Trump’s executive orders.
“Unless the judiciary acts decisively now, what was once beyond the pale will in short order become a stark reality.”
