Since the March 27 executive order targeting security clearances, federal contracts and access to federal government buildings, more than 800 law firms and 20 attorneys general have signed onto amici briefs supporting WilmerHale’s motion for a summary judgment against the order.
That motion was filed on April 8, following U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granting a temporary restraining order on March 28.
The brief from the law firms argues that, “On the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations, the Executive Order subjects an entire firm, as well as its clients and personnel, to draconian punishment.”
It also argues that the rule of law cannot endure in the climate of fear that the actions taken against the law firms targeted by the president has created.
The executive order stated that the Trump administration is “committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so called ‘Big Law’ firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to American interests. It alleged that WilmerHale “abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.”
The Trump administration also alleged that WilmerHale engages in partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate based on race, backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent crimes and drug trafficking from individuals illegally in the country and furthers the degradation of American elections. The order also noted the firm’s former employment of Robert Mueller and its current employment of Aaron Zebley and James Quarles that WilmerHale is “bent on employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice.”
Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Susman Godfrey and several of the president’s political opponents have also been subject to executive orders in a similar manner to WilmerHale. Several firms, including Paul Weiss, have settled with the administration. Others, including Perkins Coie, have sued.
Perkins Coie was also granted a restraining order while the courts hear its case against the order.
“The Executive Order targeting our firm is a plainly unlawful attack on the bedrock principles of our nation’s legal system—our clients’ right to counsel and the First Amendment. The terms of a nearly identical Executive Order have already been enjoined by a federal judge and today we have filed for immediate relief to protect the rights of our clients. We are bringing the dedication, expertise, and values that have served a wide range of clients in matters against administrations of both parties for decades to ensure their and our rights are upheld,” a WilmerHale spokesperson said in a statement on March 28.
The attorneys general of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut Delaware, Washington D.C., Hawai’i, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont all signed on to an amicus brief in support of WilmerHale.
The brief said the order “punishes the firm for the clients it represents and the political causes its lawyers support, for employing certain attorneys who President Trump views as political opponents, and for its pro bono advocacy in litigation regarding immigration, election law, and college admission policies.”
The AGs also wrote that the motion filed by WIlmerHale and the preliminary conclusion of the court show that the order is unconstitutional. They argue that it violated the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
“We appreciate the broad support for our position from many voices across the business and legal community, representing a wide range of ideological perspectives, who have strongly reinforced the unconstitutional nature of the Executive Order,” a WilmerHale spokesperson said.