Over 500 law firms across the United States have united to support Perkins Coie LLP, one of the many legal firms targeted by President Donald Trump’s administration.
In an amicus brief submitted on Friday, these law firms accused the Trump administration of waging a campaign of “severe punishment” against legal professionals who advocate for individuals and causes that the president looks down upon.
“Any controversial representation challenging the actions of the current administration (or even causes it opposes) now carries the risk of severe retaliation,” the brief asserts.
“While an administration may gain temporary advantages through such actions, the rule of law cannot thrive in the atmosphere of fear that they cultivate.”
Perkins Coie is among at least four prominent law firms targeted by Trump through executive orders, which also include WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block.
The executive orders contain broad allegations, claiming that these firms contributed to the “undermining of fundamental American values” and “engaged in conduct harmful to crucial American interests.”
As a form of punishment, the executive orders aim to revoke security clearances essential for high-stakes cases involving sensitive information, as well as prevent personnel from these firms from accessing federal buildings such as courthouses.
Each of the targeted law firms has represented clients or causes opposed by Trump.
For Perkins Coie, Trump specifically referenced the firm’s representation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who ran against him in the 2016 presidential election.
WilmerHale was called out for employing Robert Mueller, the former head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who was appointed as special counsel by the Justice Department to investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election—a probe that Trump actively opposed.
The amicus brief filed on Friday contends that Trump seeks to “intimidate” these law firms—along with smaller firms—“into submission.”
The brief emphasized that revoking security clearances and denying access to federal buildings “would threaten the very existence of any law firm,” not to mention deter clients from seeking their services.
Several law offices have already reached agreements with the Trump administration—to either lift such sanctions or prevent them from being enacted initially.
On March 20, just six days after the executive order was issued against it, New York-based law firm Paul Weiss was the first to bow to pressure.
The president announced on social media that the firm had committed to providing “$40 million in pro bono legal services throughout President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives,” in return for the revocation of the executive order.
Other firms soon followed, including Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher—all of which pledged to provide $100 million in “pro bono legal services” for Trump’s favored initiatives. Some associates at these firms have resigned in protest.
Conversely, Perkins Coie is among the firms challenging Trump’s executive orders, deeming them unconstitutional violations of free speech and due process rights.
WilmerHale and Jenner & Block have also initiated their own legal disputes.
The amicus brief submitted on behalf of Perkins Coie resonated with the arguments presented in those challenges. The firms condemned the Trump administration’s executive order as a direct threat to the right of every individual to seek legal protection.
“These Orders pose a severe threat to our system of constitutional governance and the rule of law itself,” the brief stated. “The judiciary must act with determination—now—to ensure that this abuse of executive power is halted.”
It highlighted that firms like Perkins Coie employ attorneys and experts from a wide array of political backgrounds.
Notably, this brief was submitted two days after the libertarian Cato Institute filed its own amicus brief in the case, alongside the American Civil Liberties Union.
The petition referenced the fact that a “founding father” of the US, John Adams, represented unpopular cases—such as defending British colonists who had shot at US civilians—because he upheld the principle of equal justice under the law.
“Up until now, it would have been unimaginable for a law firm to face punitive actions from the federal government for taking on such representations,” the brief noted.
It urged the federal court system to impose a permanent injunction against Trump’s executive orders.
“If the judiciary does not take decisive action now, what was once considered unacceptable will soon become a harsh reality.”
