Beginning in late February, President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders aimed at punishing major law firms for representing clients and advocating causes he does not like. The penalties include revoking lawyers' security clearances, restricting their access to federal buildings and officials, canceling federal contracts with the targeted firms, and scrutinizing other contractors for ties to them. Today two of those firms, WilmerHale and Perkins Coie, asked federal judges in the District of Columbia to issue permanent injunctions against the orders affecting them, which they say blatantly violate the First Amendment and other constitutional guarantees.
Paul, Weiss, which Trump targeted in a March 14 executive order, already has bent to Trump's will. A week later, it agreed to a set of humiliating conditions in exchange for revocation of the order, which threatened to cripple its business. At least eight other law firms have followed that example, preemptively capitulating to avoid orders aimed at them. But a few firms, including WilmerHale and Perkins Coie, chose to stand their ground, and they seem likely to succeed in court.
Trump targeted WilmerHale in an executive order issued on March 27. The very next day, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon granted WilmerHale a temporary restraining order (TRO), noting that the First Amendment prohibits government retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, including "retaliatory actions based on perceived viewpoint." He added that "the retaliatory nature of the Executive Order at issue here is clear on its face," and "there is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm."
