Body
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments Thursday on whether to keep in place lower-court rulings blocking President Donald Trump’s executive actions targeting four prominent law firms.
Paul Clement, an attorney for the firms, argued that the executive orders impermissibly punished the firms because of their relationships with clients and attorneys who “raised the president’s ire.” Clement said the measures “strike at the heart of the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients,” adding, “Lawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals.”
Clement said Trump was using the executive orders in a way that chilled lawyers’ ability to advocate for their clients, and he urged the appeals court to uphold the blocks already issued by lower courts. The panel did not indicate how or when it would rule following the two-hour hearing.
A government attorney urged a different outcome. Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli accused district court judges of rushing to judgment and overstepping their authority, saying the judges “clearly didn’t like the content” of Trump’s executive orders.
Kambli told the panel that “President Trump is not beneath the law” and said Trump should receive the benefit of Supreme Court and circuit precedent on the president’s authority in matters such as security clearance determinations and investigating anti-discrimination. He urged the appeals court to reverse the decisions that favored the law firms.
According to the court arguments described by the Associated Press, district court judges in Washington, D.C., had ruled consistently that the White House could not enforce the executive orders against the firms of Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey and WilmerHale. The executive actions, as described in the case, targeted the firms because of attorneys’ prior work and associations, including work that Trump opposed or associations with prosecutors who investigated the Republican president.
The Trump executive actions discussed in the appeal sought several enforcement measures, including suspension of security clearances for attorneys at the firms, termination of federal contracts, and barring employees from federal buildings. The government’s position was that the president’s authority supports those actions, while the firms’ arguments focused on constitutional limits and the alleged effect on lawyers’ representation.
Other major firms, the Associated Press reported, sought to avert the orders by preemptively reaching settlements. Those settlements required the firms to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services supporting causes backed by the Trump administration.