Over 500 United States law firms on Friday filed an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie's legal challenge against the Donald Trump administration’s March 6 executive order targeting the firm..An amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief allows parties not directly involved in litigation to provide information, expertise or insights that might help the court make its decision. These briefs have become increasingly important in high-profile cases, particularly those with broad implications for public policy or constitutional rights.This amicus brief is notable for bringing together firms of various sizes and practice areas, many of which typically represent opposing interests. The signatories include prominent firms like Munger, Tolles & Olson; Arnold & Porter; Covington & Burling; Jenner & Block; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr..The Perkins Coie controversy stems from allegations dating back nearly a decade ago, when lawyers from the firm represented Democratic Party clients during the 2016 election. The firm became entangled in investigations related to the Trump-Russia probe, with certain partners accused of providing misleading information to federal authorities. Though these allegations were directed at specific attorneys rather than the entire firm, the executive order imposes sweeping sanctions on Perkins Coie as a whole. The order would revoke security clearances for the firm's attorneys, potentially terminate government contracts, and deny the firm and its lawyers access to federal buildings..The brief submitted in the case of Perkins Coie LLP v. US Department of Justice argues that the executive order represents an unconstitutional attack on the legal profession and threatens the rule of law itself."In recent weeks, the President has issued not one but five executive orders imposing punitive sanctions on leading law firms in undisguised retaliation for representations that the firm, or its former partners, have undertaken," states the brief filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia..It is argued that the executive orders create "a climate of fear" by threatening devastating retaliation against law firms that take on controversial cases or challenge administration actions. According to the brief, the orders specifically target firms' pro bono work, characterising such representations as "activities that make our communities less safe, increase burdens on local businesses, limit constitutional freedoms and degrade the quality of American elections.”.Drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes that target lawyers for political reasons, the brief cautions against normalising retaliation against firms. It notes that elite firms have historically represented clients challenging presidential initiatives - from the Affordable Care Act to post-9/11 military tribunals - without fear of retribution."The judiciary should act with resolve—now—to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases," the brief urges, invoking Cooper v. Aaron (1958), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that constitutional interpretation rests with the courts, not the executive branch.."Our adversarial system depends upon zealous advocates litigating each side of a case with equal vigor; that is how impartial judges arrive at just, informed decisions that vindicate the rule of law," the brief states.The coalition emphasises that law firms play a critical role in checking government overreach and that the executive orders threaten the legal profession's ability to represent clients challenging administrations of either party. The brief draws parallels to authoritarian regimes that have targeted lawyers representing opposition figures."History offers indelible reminders of the perils associated with governmental intrusion into the autonomy of the legal system and with political retribution aimed at lawyers thought to stand in the way of a regime’s political objectives," it said..The case is currently before Judge Beryl A Howell, who has already issued a temporary restraining order against the executive order targeting Perkins Coie. The law firms are asking the court to grant a permanent injunction.The brief was drafted by Nathan P. Eimer from Eimer Stahl LLP and Donald B Verrilli, Jr of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP..[Read the brief]
Over 500 United States law firms on Friday filed an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie's legal challenge against the Donald Trump administration’s March 6 executive order targeting the firm..An amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief allows parties not directly involved in litigation to provide information, expertise or insights that might help the court make its decision. These briefs have become increasingly important in high-profile cases, particularly those with broad implications for public policy or constitutional rights.This amicus brief is notable for bringing together firms of various sizes and practice areas, many of which typically represent opposing interests. The signatories include prominent firms like Munger, Tolles & Olson; Arnold & Porter; Covington & Burling; Jenner & Block; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr..The Perkins Coie controversy stems from allegations dating back nearly a decade ago, when lawyers from the firm represented Democratic Party clients during the 2016 election. The firm became entangled in investigations related to the Trump-Russia probe, with certain partners accused of providing misleading information to federal authorities. Though these allegations were directed at specific attorneys rather than the entire firm, the executive order imposes sweeping sanctions on Perkins Coie as a whole. The order would revoke security clearances for the firm's attorneys, potentially terminate government contracts, and deny the firm and its lawyers access to federal buildings..The brief submitted in the case of Perkins Coie LLP v. US Department of Justice argues that the executive order represents an unconstitutional attack on the legal profession and threatens the rule of law itself."In recent weeks, the President has issued not one but five executive orders imposing punitive sanctions on leading law firms in undisguised retaliation for representations that the firm, or its former partners, have undertaken," states the brief filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia..It is argued that the executive orders create "a climate of fear" by threatening devastating retaliation against law firms that take on controversial cases or challenge administration actions. According to the brief, the orders specifically target firms' pro bono work, characterising such representations as "activities that make our communities less safe, increase burdens on local businesses, limit constitutional freedoms and degrade the quality of American elections.”.Drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes that target lawyers for political reasons, the brief cautions against normalising retaliation against firms. It notes that elite firms have historically represented clients challenging presidential initiatives - from the Affordable Care Act to post-9/11 military tribunals - without fear of retribution."The judiciary should act with resolve—now—to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases," the brief urges, invoking Cooper v. Aaron (1958), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that constitutional interpretation rests with the courts, not the executive branch.."Our adversarial system depends upon zealous advocates litigating each side of a case with equal vigor; that is how impartial judges arrive at just, informed decisions that vindicate the rule of law," the brief states.The coalition emphasises that law firms play a critical role in checking government overreach and that the executive orders threaten the legal profession's ability to represent clients challenging administrations of either party. The brief draws parallels to authoritarian regimes that have targeted lawyers representing opposition figures."History offers indelible reminders of the perils associated with governmental intrusion into the autonomy of the legal system and with political retribution aimed at lawyers thought to stand in the way of a regime’s political objectives," it said..The case is currently before Judge Beryl A Howell, who has already issued a temporary restraining order against the executive order targeting Perkins Coie. The law firms are asking the court to grant a permanent injunction.The brief was drafted by Nathan P. Eimer from Eimer Stahl LLP and Donald B Verrilli, Jr of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP..[Read the brief]
