Judges Partially Block Trump Orders Revoking Security Clearances of Law Firms

Both law firms say that Trump’s orders revoking their clearances and ending contracts are unconstitutional.

Signage outside of the law firm Jenner & Block LLP in Washington on Aug. 30, 2020. Andrew Kelly/Reuters

Two judges on March 28 blocked parts of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that directed the revocation of security clearances of two law firms.

U.S. District Judge John Bates blocked portions of Trump’s order targeting Jenner & Block that sought to cancel federal contracts held by the firm’s clients and to restrict its lawyers’ access to federal buildings and officials.

Bates also said Trump’s order appeared to bar lawyers at the firm from entering federal courthouses, which are managed by the federal government’s executive branch.

“Considering the firm-wide effects of the executive order, it threatens the existence of the firm,” he said.

Another U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, handling the WilmerHale case, called Trump’s order retaliatory and granted the firm’s request to block parts of the directive intended to restrict its access to U.S. government buildings and officials. Leon denied WilmerHale’s request to block a section that suspended security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm.

Trump issued the orders this week, saying the firms engaged in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.”

In his order against Jenner & Block, he wrote that the firm “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders.”

In his order against WilmerHale, he wrote that the firm “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote.”

The order also criticized Jenner & Block’s rehiring of Andrew Weissmann, the former federal prosecutor who was on former special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team from 2017 to 2019.

Mueller had previously investigated allegations of cooperation between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russian actors. The probe ultimately found no evidence that they conspired to influence the election.

Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed suit against Trump earlier on March 28 over the executive orders. The two law firms stated that Trump’s orders revoking their clearances and directing officials to terminate contracts the firms have with the federal government are unconstitutional.

“[The order against Jenner & Block] sanctions Jenner for its representation of clients in cases adverse to the government, for its prior association with an individual who has not worked at the Firm in four years but has been critical of the President, and for its hiring practices,” the firm said in its suit. “Each of these grounds, standing alone, is a constitutionally impermissible basis to target Jenner.”

WilmerHale said in its suit: “The President’s sweeping attack on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional. 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.”

Both legal actions were lodged with the federal court in Washington.

The firms asked the court to declare Trump’s order in violation of the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment, and enjoin officials from implementing the order.

“Democrats and their law firms weaponized the legal process to try to punish and jail their political opponents,” Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, told The Epoch Times in an email. “The President’s executive orders are lawful directives to ensure that the President’s agenda is implemented and that law firms comply with the law.”

Jenner & Block praised the judge’s decision, saying that it backs the notion that the executive order was “holding no legal weight.”

WilmerHale also expressed gratitude for the court’s swift action and “acknowledgement of the unconstitutional nature of the executive order and its chilling effect on the legal system.”

Deal With Skadden

Trump said on March 28 that the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has agreed to provide $100 million worth of pro bono legal services.

Trump said that Skadden will provide pro bono services “during the Trump administration and beyond” for government-backed causes. These include assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism.

Under the agreement, Skadden will not deny representation to clients such as “members of politically disenfranchised groups, who have not historically received legal representation from major National Law Firms,” Trump stated in a Truth Social post.

He said that a pro bono committee will be created “to ensure that pro bono matters are consistent with the objectives of the program, and that pro bono activities represent the full political spectrum.”

Skadden will also fund law graduates under a fellowship dedicated to supporting the causes and commit to a “merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention” policy.

Trump said that, as part of the deal, Skadden will engage “independent outside counsel” to ensure its employment practices comply with the law.

Skadden executive partner Jeremy London said in a statement shared by Trump that the firm has worked “constructively” with the Trump administration to reach the agreement.

“We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm,” London said.

Trump’s post also included a White House statement saying that Skadden had approached the president and expressed its “strong commitment to ending the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession.”

Another law firm—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss)—struck a deal with Trump to provide $40 million in legal services toward causes backed by the administration.

As part of the deal, Paul Weiss also agreed to review its hiring practices, committing to merit-based hiring, retention, and promotion. This deal ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of Trump’s executive order on March 20 against the law firm.

Zachary Stieber, T.J. Muscaro, and Reuters contributed to this report.