Photo credit: abcnews.go.com
WASHINGTON — Two prominent law firms have requested a permanent injunction from separate judges to prevent the enforcement of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, which they argue are designed to punish them and disrupt their business practices.
The firms, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, contend that the orders represent an unconstitutional attack on their profession, jeopardizing their client relationships and retaliating against them due to past legal support for individuals Trump views as opponents.
Recent court actions have led to a temporary halt on certain elements of these executive orders. Nevertheless, the firms are advocating for a full judicial review to have the orders declared invalid. A third firm, Jenner & Block, is expected to present similar concerns in the upcoming week, while a fourth firm, Susman Godfrey, will follow next month.
During the court hearing, Perkins Coie’s lawyer, Dane Butswinkas, characterized the executive order as “retaliatory.”
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell acknowledged her concerns regarding the executive order but refrained from issuing an immediate decision. However, her line of questioning suggested a potential inclination to support Perkins Coie’s stance.
She challenged a Justice Department representative about the legality of suspending security clearances for attorneys at the firm, drawing comparisons to the “Red Scare” era. She also pressed for clarification on why the administration sought to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in the hiring processes of law firms.
“Why does the administration see those terms as problematic?” Howell inquired.
In defense of the executive orders, Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson argued that the government had legitimate concerns regarding the “unlawful” considerations of race and gender in hiring policies.
The series of executive orders targeting some of the nation’s most prestigious law firms forms part of a broader effort by Trump to reshape civil society and compel organizations to adhere to the administration’s preferences. This has put many entities in a difficult position—navigate opposition or concede to avoid punitive measures. While some firms are challenging the executive orders legally, others have sought settlements to sidestep further disputes.
The executive actions typically impose similar restrictions on the targeted law firms, including the suspension of security clearances for attorneys, the cancellation of federal contracts, and limitations on lawyers’ access to government facilities.
Judicial decisions have previously blocked some measures affecting federal contracts and building access, yet the suspension of security clearances has not faced similar judicial reprieve, becoming a focal point in the Perkins Coie case.
During the hearings, Judge Howell expressed discomfort with the administration’s approach of terminating security clearances without individualized evaluations of the attorneys involved. She displayed frustration as Lawson struggled to explain the protocols related to the suspension process.
“You can’t provide details about which agencies are overseeing this review?” she challenged.
“Is there any notification for the firm or attorneys whose clearances are suspended regarding when the review will take place?” she further pressed.
While the administration has cited national security as the rationale behind these executive orders, Butswinkas dismissed this narrative as implausible, pointing out that the attorneys referenced in the order had left Perkins Coie years prior.
“This seems more reflective of national insecurity than genuine national security concerns,” Butswinkas remarked.
The initial action against a law firm occurred in February when Trump suspended the security clearances of attorneys at Covington & Burling, who provided legal counsel to special counsel Jack Smith, known for investigating Trump between his first and second presidential terms.
The executive order against Perkins Coie referred to the firm’s previous representation of political figure Hillary Clinton during the 2016 elections, whereas WilmerHale’s order referenced its prior affiliation with Robert Mueller, who oversaw investigations into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia.
“The President openly acknowledges targeting WilmerHale for its representation of his political opponents and involvement in litigation challenging his policies,” the firm noted in its court filing prior to the hearing.
In a post-hearing statement, WilmerHale representatives affirmed their commitment to defending the principles of legal counsel and free speech, trusting that the court would ultimately prevent the executive order from taking effect.
Last month, Paul Weiss reached an agreement with the Trump administration that led to the cancellation of an executive order aimed at the firm.
Recently, more than half a dozen firms have made deals with the White House, which, among other stipulations, require them to provide legal services aligned with causes promoted by the Trump administration.
The firms involved 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.
Source
abcnews.go.com