Two Major Law Firms Urge Judges to Permanently Block Executive Orders Against Them

Both law firms sued the administration shortly after the president’s executive orders were issued in March.

Signage outside of the law firm WilmerHale in Washington on Aug. 30, 2020. Andrew Kelly/Reuters

Two major law firms urged separate judges on April 23 to permanently block President Donald Trump’s executive orders that revoked their security clearances and banned them from doing business with federal contractors.

Attorneys for Perkins Coie LLP asked District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington to grant them permanent relief from Trump’s order, arguing that it was issued in retaliation for the firm taking on clients and cases Trump disliked and that his actions violated its constitutional protections.

Lawyers for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, also known as WilmerHale, made similar arguments to District Judge Richard Leon in Washington in the firm’s case before him.

Neither Howell nor Leon issued an immediate ruling. Howell said she was troubled that the administration was putting the “cart before the horse” by stripping security clearances en masse without first conducting an individualized review of attorneys.

Trump’s March 6 order against Perkins Coie prevents the law firm from doing business with federal contractors, bans its lawyers from accessing government officials, and suspends any active security clearances held by individuals at the firm, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.

Perkins Coie was hired by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2016.

The order states that the firm engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity” that has affected the United States “for decades.”

Trump’s March 27 executive order against WilmerHale also directs government agencies to terminate any contracts with the firm, revoke security clearances, and restrict its employees’ access to government buildings.

The order cites WilmerHale’s employment of former special counsel Robert Mueller, who previously investigated alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, along with his colleagues, Aaron Zebley and James Quarles.

The investigation found that neither President Donald Trump nor any member of his campaign colluded with Russia.

“Mueller’s investigation epitomizes the weaponization of government, yet WilmerHale claimed he ‘embodies the highest value of our firm and profession,’” the order states. “Mueller’s ‘investigation’ upended the lives of public servants in my Administration who were summoned before ‘prosecutors’ with the effect of interfering in their ability to fulfill the mandates of my first term agenda.”

Both law firms sued the administration shortly after the orders were issued, asking the courts to declare them unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment, and to prevent officials from implementing them.

Courts last month temporarily halted enforcement of key provisions within both orders. The firms asked Howell and Leon on April 23 to strike them down in their entirety and issue rulings in their favor.

Trump Admin Defends Executive Orders

Howell questioned Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer Richard Lawson for two hours. She asked for more information about the deals the Trump administration reached with other law firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins, and Kirkland & Ellis, all of whom sought to avoid a similar executive order being issued against them.

Lawson said he did not have any more information about those deals apart from what had already been publicly announced.

Howell also pressed Lawson about the Trump administration’s stance on law firms using diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations in their hiring practices.

Lawson disputed the idea that the executive orders were meant to punish the law firms. He said the government was allowed to be concerned by what he described as the unlawful consideration of race and gender as hiring factors by law firms.

In the WilmerHale case, the DOJ lawyer asked that Leon find the executive order to be within the bounds of presidential discretion, arguing that the order was not punishing the firm, or any firm.

The judge disputed this and said the mere threat that a firm might not be able to carry out legal business was indeed punishment.

In a statement after the hearing, a WilmerHale spokesperson said the firm had “fiercely defended the foundational constitutional rights to counsel and free speech, building on the successful arguments that prevented the unlawful Executive Order from taking effect. We remain confident the court will permanently block the order.”

Perkins Coie said in a statement that it looked forward to the court’s decision.

The Epoch Times has contacted the White House for comment.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.