Law firms targeted by Trump ask judges to permanently bar Trump
Law firms targeted by Trump ask judges to permanently bar executive orders against them
April 23 (Reuters) – Two U.S. judges grilled a Justice Department lawyer on Wednesday over President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting prominent law firms WilmerHale and Perkins Coie, at hearings testing claims that the president’s actions were retaliatory and unlawful.
Attorneys for Perkins Coie asked U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington to permanently bar Trump’s order against it, calling the measure an act of retaliation that violates U.S. constitutional protections.
WilmerHale’s lawyers made similar arguments to U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in the firm’s case before him. Leon, also in Washington, said he would issue a decision within weeks. Howell also did not immediately rule.
Both judges expressed concern about the scope of Trump’s orders, suggesting that the White House faces a difficult path ahead.
The court hearings are the latest flashpoint in a legal battle pitting prominent law firms against Trump and his administration.
Trump’s orders against Perkins Coie and WilmerHale sought to restrict their lawyers’ access to federal buildings and to end government contracts held by their clients, citing the firms’ connections to his legal and political enemies.
RELATED:
Howell pressed Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson for two hours, including asking for more information about the deals Trump has reached with law firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis, which all sought to avoid a similar executive order being issued against them.
Lawson said he did not have any more information about the deals apart from what has been publicly announced, including whether the law firms and the White House memorialized their agreements.
Howell said the revocation of the executive order against Paul Weiss after the firm reached its deal with Trump was the “clearest evidence” that the orders have “nothing to do with national security,” as the administration has argued.
Dane Butswinkas, a lawyer for Perkins Coie, argued that the executive order is retaliatory for taking on clients and cases Trump did not like.
An attorney for WilmerHale, Paul Clement, told Leon that the retaliatory nature of the executive order was “crystal clear” and that the order was unconstitutional as a whole — “root and branch.”
Clement also said the order against WilmerHale posed a “grave threat to the rule of law.”
Lawson asked that Leon find the executive order to be within the bounds of presidential discretion. Lawson argued that the order was not punishing WilmerHale, or any firm.
Leon said that the mere threat that a firm might not be able to do some legal business was indeed punishment.
The hearings, known as a summary judgment hearing, focus on the merits of a court fight, and comes before a trial.
Leon, a Republican appointee, issued a temporary order last month blocking key provisions of the order against WilmerHale, a 1,100-lawyer firm that has a large office in Washington.
Howell, a Democrat appointee, also temporarily blocked Trump’s order last month against Seattle-founded Perkins Coie, which employs more than 1,200 lawyers. Two other judges weighing lawsuits by other firms have issued similar orders.
Paul Weiss, Kirkland and other firms have cumulatively pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services and made other concessions in their deals with Trump.
Hundreds of law firms, thousands of lawyers and dozens of attorney bar groups have backed the law firms suing the administration, calling the executive orders an illegal attempt to intimidate firms from representing clients adverse to Trump’s interests.
Some lawyers at law firms that have cut deals with Trump have resigned in protest.
_____________
REUTERS