Legal Organizations Across Ideologies File Amicus Briefs in Support of Jenner & Block, WilmerHale Law Firms

WASHINGTON – Today, a cross-ideological group of legal advocacy organizations filed two amicus briefs asking the court to strike down illegal executive orders targeting Jenner & Block and WilmerHale.

These orders impose punishment on the firms in retaliation for their First Amendment-protected work on lawsuits disfavored by the president – including challenges to his immigration and LGBTQ policies – and their past employment of attorneys the president views as his political or legal adversaries, such as Robert Mueller.

These organizations include:

• ACLU
• ACLU of D.C.
• Cato Institute
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
• Institute for Justice
• Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
• National Coalition Against Censorship
• Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press
• The Rutherford Institute
• Society for the Rule of Law Institute

The amicus briefs ask the courts to enjoin the executive orders targeting Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, respectively. The briefs argue that the president’s executive orders violate fundamental First Amendment protections because they unconstitutionally retaliate against the firms for advocacy against the government. The executive orders also violate separation of powers and due process by undermining the independence of the bar, which is essential for the courts to ensure that the other branches of the government comply with the Constitution.

“President Trump is deliberately targeting lawyers and law firms who have opposed him in the courts, with the aim of chilling the entire legal profession and our ability to vindicate the people’s rights and freedom in the courts,” said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. “These orders are unconstitutional. The ACLU is proud to work with other civil liberties organizations to support brave lawyers – including at Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale – who have stood up to this attack on the rule of law.”

“For centuries lawyers in this country have defended clients without fear of retaliation from the government. It’s a cornerstone of our legal system. Today, President Trump is trying to undermine that tradition," said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU-D.C. “It is now up to our courts to prove that our legal system can withstand this threat. We have confidence that they will.”

“The fundamental rights to free speech and legal counsel transcend political ideology and partisan politics,” said Director of Constitutional Studies Tommy Berry and Senior Vice President Clark Neily at the Cato Institute. “That is why Cato has joined a broad cross-ideological coalition standing firm against these unconstitutional orders.”

“An independent legal profession is a fundamental component of democracy and the rule of law,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “As a nonprofit legal organization that frequently sues the federal government, we well understand the value of this bedrock principle and how it, and First Amendment rights more broadly, are threatened by President Trump’s executive orders. It is especially important that the whole legal profession speak out against the executive orders in light of the capitulation by a few large law firms."

“President Trump’s systematic retaliation against law firms for representing clients or causes he opposes is more than an attack on those firms — it’s an attack on the rule of law itself,” said Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “If you’re being prosecuted, suing the government for violating your rights, or challenging an unconstitutional law, you need a lawyer. And you shouldn’t have to worry about whether the government will retaliate against the attorneys who take your case. The use of executive power to punish opponents is neither new nor confined to a single party, but we should always be alarmed by such unconstitutional overreach. Today’s tactics can just as easily be turned against the views or causes you support tomorrow.”

"The government's position is that it can punish law firms when it doesn't like their advocacy, which should terrify any lawyer who, like us, often angers government officials,” said Scott Bullock, president and chief counsel at the Institute for Justice. “We join this brief to protect the basic principle that lawyers have the right to sue the government, even when the government doesn't like it."

“One of the proudest traditions in our legal system is that of lawyers standing up to oppose unlawful acts by the government,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “President Trump’s executive orders are an unconstitutional attack on that tradition and on the rule of law.”

“The protection of our First Amendment rights requires access to counsel who can represent clients even when — perhaps especially when — those clients hold views disfavored by the government,” said Lee Rowland, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship. “The ability of lawyers to zealously represent controversial clients without fear of government reprisal is essential for our individual liberty, and central to American history, values, and our very democracy.”

"Efforts to chill the legal profession from representing clients perceived as critical of the administration are a direct threat to journalists, who rely on lawyers to vindicate their First Amendment rights,” said Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “Not only are these executive orders unconstitutional, if allowed to stand they could serve to hinder public interest newsgathering."

“That the Trump Administration is weaponizing the government to wage a war against dissent should be a warning to all Americans,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “History shows that when governments claim the power to silence dissent—whether in the name of national security, border protection, or law and order—that power rarely remains limited. These threats against the legal community and ‘we the people’ are merely the first round of the Trump Administration’s effort to turn the Bill of Rights into a Bill of Conditional Privileges.”

“The administration’s targeting of select law firms for punishment strikes at the heart of the rule of law and the separation of powers upon which our freedoms depend,” said Gregg Nunziata, executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law Institute. “The Society for the Rule of Law Institute vigorously opposes these unconstitutional orders and is proud to once again partner across the ideological spectrum in defense of fundamental American principles.”

The president has issued a series of directives and executive orders expressly intended to tamp down on lawsuits against his administration’s policies. Since February, the president has issued nearly identical executive orders against law firms and specific lawyers – all for similar reasons, namely the former employment of political opponents or those who have sued the president or his administration in the past. A broader directive issued on Friday, March 21 directed the secretary of Homeland Security and attorney general to investigate and seek sanctions against any attorneys or law firms that challenge the president’s actions. Three law firms – Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale – have filed lawsuits against the illegal executive orders targeting them.