Two Leading Law Firms Call on Judges to Permanently Block Trump's Executive Orders

Two Top Law Firms Challenge Trump’s Executive Orders in Court

WASHINGTON — Two of the country’s most prominent law firms, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, appeared in separate federal courtrooms Wednesday seeking to permanently block executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that they claim were designed to punish them for past political and legal affiliations. The White House / Wikimedia

Firms Claim Orders Are Retaliation for Political Legal Work

The firms argue the orders are unconstitutional retaliations for legal work linked to Trump’s political adversaries. “The entire executive order is retaliatory,” said Dane Butswinkas, representing Perkins Coie during the hearing.

Both firms say the orders threaten their relationships with clients and could result in suspended security clearances, terminated federal contracts, and restricted access to government buildings. Sora Shimazaki / Pexels

Judge Howell Questions Administration’s Stance on Diversity Language

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, presiding over Perkins Coie’s challenge, expressed repeated concern over the legality and motivation behind the actions. Pressing a Justice Department lawyer, she asked pointedly, “Why does the administration view those three words [diversity, equity, and inclusion] as dirty?” Administrative Office of the United States Courts / Wikimedia

DOJ Defends Orders, Citing Concerns Over Diversity Practices

Richard Lawson, a DOJ attorney defending the orders, maintained that the administration had a right to object to what it described as the “unlawful” use of race and gender in hiring. ajay_suresh / Wikimedia

Firms Tied to Clinton and Mueller Investigations

The Trump administration’s executive orders have been viewed by some as part of a broader effort to influence civil institutions. Perkins Coie was named in part due to its role representing Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, while WilmerHale was included partly because of its previous association with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In a court filing, WilmerHale’s legal team stated that “the President openly proclaims” his actions were in response to the firm’s political and legal affiliations. The White House / Wikimedia

Judge Questions Transparency in Clearance Suspensions

Judge Howell expressed concern about the procedural transparency related to the suspension of attorneys’ security clearances. “You can’t tell me which agencies are conducting this review?” she asked, following unclear responses from government representatives. qimono / Pixabay

Attorney: National Security Claim Is “National Insecurity”

Butswinkas mocked the administration’s justification on national security grounds, stating, “To me, it sounds more like national insecurity than national security,” noting that the cited attorneys left the firm years ago. Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia

Some Firms Settle with Trump Administration, Others Fight Back

Other law firms—including Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey—are scheduled to challenge similar orders in court in the coming weeks, according to The New York Times. Meanwhile, a growing list of firms have opted to settle with the administration. Among them are Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Kirkland & Ellis, and Latham & Watkins, many of which agreed to provide pro bono work on causes supported by Trump’s policy agenda in exchange for lifted restrictions, according to Reuters.

In a statement following Wednesday’s hearing, a WilmerHale spokesperson reaffirmed the firm’s stance: “We remain confident the court will permanently block the order.” WilliamCho / Pixabay