Some conservatives in the legal profession are pushing back against President Trump’s executive orders that punish law firms that have investigated or filed lawsuits against him.
Paul Clement, known as one of the best oral advocates before the Supreme Court, is representing the law firm WilmerHale as it fights the administration’s moves to punish certain firms. Mr. Clement clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, served as solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, and has litigated conservative causes.
In addition, the Society for the Rule of Law Institute, a group of conservative lawyers, issued a statement after Mr. Trump targeted the law firm Perkins Coie with an executive order last month.
“It is time for us, as attorneys, to decide how we will respond to this type of action. As conservatives who have spent our lives advocating the Constitution, the rule of law, and the faithful application of justice, we choose to support our beleaguered colleagues,” the group’s statement reads. “We understand that there are those who share our principles, but who prefer to stay silent and hope the moment passes. To them we say: Speak out now, or prepare for the same to happen to you.”
The Society for the Rule of Law Institute has joined others to oppose the orders in court.
“The rule of law in America depends on an independent judiciary deciding cases brought by attorneys able to represent clients without fear of government retribution,” said Gregg Nunziata, said the organization’s executive director. “By taking punitive action against law firms, the Administration has threatened the rule of law, a keystone of American liberty. The Society for the Rule of Law Institute believes all Americans, regardless of partisan or policy preferences, must unite in defense of core American values whenever they are threatened.”
Like Society for the Rule of Law Institute, the libertarian think tank Cato Institute has joined in the legal fight: Cato has signed onto a brief with the American Civil Liberties Union that supports Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against Mr. Trump’s move to restrict its business, saying the order is an “attack on the independence of the legal profession.”
“If allowed to stand, President’s Trump’s pressure tactics will have broad and lasting impacts on Americans’ ability to retain legal counsel, to speak their minds, and to sue the government,” said Thomas Berry, director of Cato’s constitutional studies.
“The rights to free speech and legal counsel transcend political ideology and partisan politics. That is why Cato has joined a broad coalition, led by the ACLU, to file a brief supporting Perkins Coie as it defends itself against this unconstitutional executive order,” Mr. Berry said.
The pushback from the right follows Mr. Trump issuing executive orders last month to restrict actions of certain law firms that represented or aided his political rivals. The president’s orders aim to remove security clearances for the attorneys, restrict the firms’ access to federal buildings and terminate government contracts.
Critics, like Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, and Rep. Jamie Raskin, Maryland Democrat, say the moves are political retribution and they are looking to investigate.
According to Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Raskin:
• Perkins Coie was targeted after representing Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign, which led to opposition research suggesting that Mr. Trump had ties to Russia.
• Covington & Burling was targeted for offering services to special counsel Jack Smith in his now-defunct election interference and document mishandling probes against Mr. Trump.
• Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison was targeted for employing a lawyer who had worked on the Manhattan hush money case against Mr. Trump.
• Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, were targeted for employing lawyers linked to former special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated the alleged Trump-Russia ties.
The Democratic lawmakers contacted some of the firms and White House Counsel David Warrington in search of records related to their communications after a few firms that have been targeted or were worried they would soon be decided to offer legal services to the president as a way to escape the restrictions.
The law firms of Paul, Weiss; Milibank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have reportedly negotiated settlements.
Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale have sued, arguing that the executive orders run afoul of First Amendment rights. They have won temporary restraining orders against the president’s orders.
The Justice Department, according to The Associated Press, sent a letter reminding the executive agencies that they have authority to decide who to carry out work with, following one of the judge’s rulings, appearing to resist the court order.
Spokespeople from the firms did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the conservative Manhattan Institute, noted that some conservatives are pushing back on the orders while others are not. He pointed out that Mr. Clement was ousted from a firm after clashing over representing gun advocates in Second Amendment disputes.
Mr. Shapiro said he doesn’t have much sympathy for some of the big law firms claiming to be concerned about First Amendment rights.
“They don’t hesitate themselves to discriminate on viewpoint,” he said.
Curt Levey, president of the conservative Committee for Justice, said he thinks that the legal arguments against Mr. Trump’s executive orders are a stretch and that most conservative lawyers he spoke to agree with him.
“While it’s true that some conservative legal voices have called the orders unconstitutional, I think that’s a reaction based on policy objections, the novelty of these orders, and the fact that it’s their profession that is being adversely affected more than it is based on strong legal arguments,” Mr. Levey said.
“I also think it’s rich that the same law firms that stood in the way of their attorneys representing President Trump and made it hard for lawyers connected to Trump during his first term to find good jobs afterwards are now complaining that the President is discriminating against them based on their viewpoint,” he added.
