Two federal judges on Wednesday appeared sympathetic to arguments from elite law firms asking for definitive relief from President Trump’s executive orders targeting them.
Lawyers for two firms, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, have asked the courts to permanently block the Trump administration from carrying out the orders, arguing that the measures are so blatantly unconstitutional that no trial is necessary.
The orders, they stressed, pose a critical threat to their businesses and the legal profession writ large. The firms have clients and have employed lawyers Mr. Trump opposes politically.
The judges presiding over their cases, Beryl A. Howell and Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court in Washington, said they would take some time to reach a final decision. But both appeared receptive to the firms’ position that Mr. Trump was retaliating against them for speech he does not like.
Mr. Trump singled out Perkins Coie and WilmerHale for punishment in March with individualized executive orders, owing largely to past legal work on behalf of clients opposing Mr. Trump and policies he had championed. Among other measures, the orders directed federal agencies not to contract with the firms or permit their staff into federal buildings, and to suspend security clearances held by their lawyers.
Both firms had been involved in investigations concerning Russian disinformation during the 2016 election, and the question of whether Russian influence had been designed to benefit Mr. Trump’s campaign. And both noted in court filings that the president himself had said repeatedly that he had singled them out specifically because of their previous clients.
The government has asked that the lawsuits be dismissed, arguing that the orders were all within the president’s authority and an expression of political speech.
During a hearing Wednesday morning, Judge Howell spent two hours challenging Richard Lawson, a Justice Department lawyer who represented the government in both cases, to speak to a panoply of issues with the orders.
She repeatedly cast doubt on Mr. Lawson’s insistence that the White House, after careful consideration, had moved in good faith to rein in a small handful of law firms it deemed reckless, demanding they do free public interest work in exchange for being allowed to continue operating as usual.
Judge Howell also asked Mr. Lawson to speak to an expert opinion filed in the case by J. William Leonard, a former Defense Department official who worked for decades overseeing security clearances, and who compared Mr. Trump’s orders with tactics Senator Joseph McCarthy employed during the Red Scare.
“The arbitrary directive of immediate suspension of security clearances not for any personal conduct by any clearance holder but rather simply for that individual’s association with a law firm is no different analytically than if a directive were issued to immediately suspend the security clearances of all Jews or Muslims, all members of the LGBTQ+ community, all women, or all registered Democrats or Republicans,” Mr. Leonard had written in his report.
The outcome of the two cases on Wednesday, along with several nearly identical ones involving other firms, hold profound implications for the legal community, particularly after the president’s executive orders and threats caused a deep rift among elite corporate firms.
Facing similar threats from the White House, some high-powered firms responded by bowing to pressure, offering hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pro bono work on issues Mr. Trump supports in an attempt to escape persecution. To avoid attracting the president’s ire, none of the 10 largest firms by revenue initially signed onto a legal brief expressing support for Perkins Coie after it became the first firm subject to an order.
While discussing the case of Paul, Weiss, one of the firms that cut a deal, Mr. Lawson told Judge Howell that it was well within the president’s authority to rescind security clearances when their holders had fallen out of favor.
“When it comes to the national security clearances, an essential factor is trust in the holder,” he said.
“And $40 million worth of free legal services is enough to have the president trust Paul, Weiss again,” Judge Howell shot back.
Even as the Justice Department has maintained in court that the president’s orders were sincere and apolitical, designed to protect U.S. interests, Mr. Trump has continued to weigh in online, lashing out at the firms and the judges hearing the cases.
“I could have a 100% perfect case and she would angrily rule against me,” he wrote on Truth Social less than two hours before Judge Beryl presided over the Perkins Coie case. “It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome, and she’s got a bad case of it. To put it nicely, Beryl Howell is an unmitigated train wreck.”
Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, as well as Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, two other firms that chose to fight Mr. Trump’s executive orders in court, have already been granted temporary injunctions stopping the orders from taking effect while litigation proceeds.
On Wednesday, lawyers for both Perkins Coie and WilmerHale firmly rejected the government’s position, breaking down the different sections of the orders, which, among other things, accused them of interfering in elections and employing diversity and equity practices in hiring that Mr. Trump has framed as racist and tried to stamp out across the country.
Both described the orders as carelessly put together and nakedly political, pointing to apparent contradictions.
A lawyer representing Perkins Coie, Dane Butswinkas, noted that the lawyers who had drawn Mr. Trump’s rage had left the firm years ago, and that the firm’s involvement with Hillary Clinton’s political campaign, which Mr. Trump’s order referred to, happened in 2016.
“The president had a whole four years after that, where it didn’t seem like it hindered national security — it took nine years for it to hinder national security,” he said.
With both judges appearing inclined to agree that Mr. Trump’s actions seemed designed to exact revenge, both firms urged them to definitively block the orders before they caused wider intimidation and submission among elite firms.
“They claim we’re hysterical — I plead guilty,” Mr. Butswinkas said. “But there’s an old saying: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”
