FOLLOW US

A bipartisan coalition of 21 attorneys general from across the United States has filed powerful amicus curiae briefs in support of law firms WilmerHale and Jenner & Block in their lawsuits challenging recent executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump. The attorneys general argue that the orders represent a direct and unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment and the legal profession’s independence.

The coalition — representing 20 states and Washington, D.C. — is urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant summary judgment in favor of the firms. The legal filings stress that Trump’s executive orders unlawfully punish lawyers for representing clients or causes that the former president personally opposes.

“Advocates who appear in courtrooms must enjoy the right to speak freely on behalf of their clients without fear of government retribution,” the briefs state. “Government entities must never respond to criticism or opposition with intimidation or retaliation.”

In March, the federal court preliminarily found that the Trump orders were “unconstitutional several times over.” The orders directed agencies to suspend security clearances, restrict access to government buildings, and review or terminate federal contracts involving WilmerHale and Jenner & Block. Agencies were further instructed to compel contractors to disclose any affiliations with these firms.

The law firms argue that these measures are designed to silence dissent and coerce loyalty, undermining the foundations of a free legal system.

“Lawyers cannot fulfill their duty to clients if they’re threatened with punishment for protected speech,” said Jenner & Block in its motion for summary judgment.
WilmerHale added, “The government cannot lawfully retaliate against lawyers for their viewpoints or associations.”

The Trump administration has moved to dismiss both cases, claiming the executive orders are “straightforwardly legal.” However, Judges John D. Bates and Richard J. Leon previously blocked parts of the orders, including provisions relating to security clearances.

Joining the state AGs, a group of distinguished legal ethics professors submitted their own briefs, warning that these orders threaten the self-regulating integrity of the legal profession and could lead to ethical violations or even potential bribery concerns.

“If law firms must appease the president to survive, their lawyers’ independent judgment and client loyalty are compromised,” the professors wrote. “Unchecked, these actions chip away at the rule of law.”

The professors include George M. Cohen (University of Virginia), Susan P. Koniak (Boston University), Jonah E. Perlin and Mitt Regan (Georgetown), and W. Bradley Wendel (Cornell).

Leading AGs Speak Out

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, who is co-leading the coalition with Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, called the executive orders “outrageous, unprecedented, and unconstitutional.”

“We proudly stand with law firms refusing to back down in the face of these threats,” Platkin said.

Raoul added:

“Attacking attorneys for representing disfavored clients threatens our First Amendment rights, right to counsel, and the independence of the judiciary.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James emphasized:

“No president has the power to punish law firms for doing their job. The right to counsel and free speech is foundational to our democracy.”

The 21 jurisdictions supporting the lawsuits are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.

More than 500 law firms, including Covington & Burling, Munger Tolles & Olson, and Perkins Coie, have also filed supportive briefs. Some firms, such as Paul Weiss, have reached private settlements with the administration, but others — like Perkins Coie — are continuing their legal fight, securing temporary restraining orders in the process.