Lawyers for the Justice Department and four major law firms clashed this week over how federal courts should handle a series of high-profile challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting firms tied to past investigations and litigation against him.
The Trump administration asked judges to pause the law firm cases until the court resolves a related appeal involving attorney Mark Zaid, a longtime Washington lawyer whose security clearance was stripped by Trump, according to a filing Monday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli, arguing for the DOJ, argued that the Zaid case raises overlapping legal issues that could help clarify how the appeals court should approach the broader dispute over Trump’s authority to suspend security clearances and restrict access to federal buildings for lawyers at Big Law firms.
Short of a pause, the DOJ urged the court to consolidate the cases. Kambli pointed out that the court had scheduled briefings through April 10 for the Zaid case, suggesting that the litigation involving the law firms could resume after Zaid’s trial concludes.
The four firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — strongly opposed any delay, accusing the administration of trying to slow-walk litigation over executive orders they say were designed to punish political opponents.
“These cases should move forward,” attorneys for the firms wrote in an eight-page filing, calling the Zaid appeal “almost entirely unrelated” and arguing that further delay would unfairly prolong uncertainty over the legality of the orders.
A broader fight over Trump’s executive power
The dispute is the latest development in Trump’s sweeping effort to rein in elite law firms, which he argues played key roles in politicized investigations targeting him and his allies.
Trump’s executive orders barred lawyers at the targeted firms from holding security clearances or entering certain federal buildings and threatened to terminate government contracts involving the firms or their clients. The president has framed the moves as part of his campaign to end what he calls the “weaponization” of federal power against political adversaries.
Each of the four firms has ties to investigations or litigation that targeted Trump or his allies. Perkins Coie was instrumental in conducting research for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign that fueled the Trump-Russia collusion allegations via the Steele dossier. Jenner & Block and WilmerHale employed lawyers closely associated with former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump. Susman Godfrey secured a massive defamation settlement against the right-of-center news giant, Fox News.
Since the lawsuits first emerged last spring, district judges have temporarily or permanently blocked the executive orders, setting up the legal proceedings now before the D.C. Circuit.
Law firms push back
Attorneys for the firms rejected that argument, saying the cases involve materially different facts and legal questions.
“Zaid concerns only a challenge to the revocation of an individual’s security clearance,” the firms wrote, while the executive order cases involve a “policy requiring blanket suspension of security clearances” for entire firms, along with restrictions on federal access and contracting.
They also warned that forcing the cases into a single consolidated appeal could dilute firm-specific arguments and gloss over differences in how lower courts ruled against the government.
While four district judges have already found constitutional problems with Trump’s orders, the firms noted that the rulings relied on different combinations of First Amendment, due process, and separation-of-powers grounds.
Three former U.S. solicitors general — Paul Clement, Donald Verrilli Jr., and Elizabeth Prelogar — are representing three of the firms. Perkins Coie is represented by Dane Butswinkas of Williams & Connolly.
The firms have proposed a middle-ground approach in response to the government’s proposed timeline, including openness to partially consolidating the cases, with same-day arguments before the same panel of judges, but with separate briefs allowing each firm to present its own case.
WHY TRUMP’S FIGHT WITH BIG LAW HAS SOME DEFENDERS IN THE LEGAL WORLD
The litigation comes amid signs that Trump’s strategy has already reshaped behavior among several Big Law firms.
Wall Street giant Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison was also targeted by an executive order, but it was rescinded after the firm agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to the administration. Eight other firms reportedly reached preemptive agreements totaling nearly $1 billion in pro bono work.