US Appeals Court Questions Trump’s Bid to Punish Major Law Firms

President Donald Trump’s administration faced scepticism from a federal appeals court on Thursday as it sought to revive executive orders targeting four major US law firms, in a case testing the limits of presidential power after lower courts ruled the measures unlawful.

During arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli argued that a law firm’s business relationships, including the lawyers it hires, are not protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Former Republican-appointed US Solicitor General Paul Clement, appearing for the law firms, countered that Trump’s executive orders “strike at the heart of the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients”.

Trump’s efforts to penalise law firms and lawyers he opposes became a central feature of his broader campaign against perceived political adversaries early in his second term. Thursday’s hearing attracted more than 100 lawyers and spectators to the Washington courtroom.

Judges Said Orders Violated Constitution

The targeted firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey — each secured sweeping victories in lower federal courts, where judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents separately ruled last year that Trump’s executive orders violated free speech protections and other constitutional provisions.

The orders cited the firms’ legal work, recruitment policies, diversity initiatives and political affiliations. They sought to bar the firms’ lawyers from entering federal buildings and to terminate US government contracts held by their clients. The measures also revoked government security clearances for certain employees of the firms.

The three-judge appeals panel — comprising two Democratic-appointed judges and one Republican-appointed judge — repeatedly questioned the breadth of authority claimed by the administration.

Judge Sri Srinivasan, appointed by former President Barack Obama, pressed the Justice Department on whether Trump could revoke security clearances for reasons unrelated to a person’s trustworthiness or ability to protect classified information.

Kambli argued that courts lacked authority to review such decisions when the president invokes national security concerns.

“Even if it is for improper motives, it is ultimately unreviewable,” Kambli said.

Clement responded that previous court rulings did not completely shield presidential decisions on security clearances from legal challenges.

“You’re opening the door for a president to say, ‘I just don’t think Democrats are trustworthy’ or ‘law firms that represent Democrats are trustworthy’, and I don’t think you want to open that door,” Clement argued.

Kambli appeared to receive support from Trump-appointed Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, who focused her questioning on the limits of judicial review in matters involving security clearances.

Test of Presidential Authority

In court filings, the Justice Department argued that the cases were “not about the sanctity of the American law firm” but about “lower courts encroaching on the constitutional power of the president” in areas involving national security and executive authority.

The firms received support from several legal organisations, including the American Bar Association, which urged the appeals court to reject the administration’s arguments.

“They were singled out because they represented clients or associated with attorneys who raised the president’s ire,” Clement told the court. “While most retaliation claims rely on speculation or extensive discovery, here the executive orders lay the president’s motives bare.”

Nine other firms, including Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, reached settlements with the Trump administration to avoid facing similar executive orders.

The appeals court also heard the administration’s challenge to a separate ruling preventing it from revoking the government security clearance of prominent Washington lawyer Mark Zaid.

Any eventual rulings by the DC Circuit in both cases could ultimately be appealed before the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.