Last year, we wrote about the dangerous precedent set when President Trump used executive orders to target major law firms because of the clients they represented and the legal positions they took. We said then that this wasn’t just about Perkins Coie, or Jenner & Block, or WilmerHale, or Susman Godfrey. It was about whether government power can be used to punish lawyers and law firms for doing their jobs.
That concern hasn’t gone away. It’s grown.
Our law firm has now joined a broad coalition of law firms that signed an amicus curiae brief supporting Perkins Coie and urging the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to affirm the district court rulings striking down these executive orders. The brief was filed on April 3, 2026, in consolidated appeals scheduled for oral argument on May 14, 2026.
In the amicus brief, over 800 law firms joined together to oppose an “extraordinary and unprecedented threat” to the legal profession and the rule of law.
This Is Bigger Than One Law Firm
This case isn’t really about whether you like Perkins Coie. It isn’t about whether you agree with a particular client, a particular lawsuit, or a particular political cause.
It’s about whether the President of the United States can use the machinery of government to punish lawyers and law firms for representing disfavored people and causes.
If that can happen, then the independence of the legal profession no longer is real. And if the independence of the legal profession no longer is real, neither is the rule of law.
That sounds dramatic, but it’s true. Lawyers are supposed to be able to represent clients without worrying that the government will retaliate by cutting off access to federal buildings, threatening security clearances, or pressuring clients and contractors to walk away from their chosen law firm or lawyer. The district court rulings, and the amicus briefs filed in support of affirmance, treat those orders as unconstitutional attacks on core First Amendment, due process, and equal protection principles.
The Goal of the Executive Orders
The amicus brief doesn’t mince words, and neither should we.
It explains that the President’s executive orders targeted four prominent law firms in retaliation for legal representations the President disliked or expected to dislike. It says the purpose was to intimidate “every firm, large and small, into submission.” It also explains the very real harms that followed, including canceled meetings with federal officials, concerns about courthouse access, threats to security clearances, and pressure on clients whose business depends on federal contracts.
That’s not ordinary political hardball. That’s government retaliation aimed at making lawyers think twice before taking on controversial clients or challenging official action.
And that’s exactly why this matters far beyond the firms named in the executive orders.
Why Law Firms Across the Country Are Speaking Up
The brief makes a point that deserves attention: the firms signing onto it represent all kinds of clients, hold all kinds of political views, and don’t agree with each other on everything. What unites them is something more basic and more important. They are united in supporting the rule of law and preserving the independence and integrity of the legal profession.
That should tell you something.
This isn’t a partisan exercise. It’s not about left versus right. It’s about whether lawyers may still do what lawyers are supposed to do in a constitutional democracy: represent clients, challenge government action, defend rights, test the limits of power, and insist that no public official is above the law.
The amicus brief says it plainly: checking federal government overreach, whether the administration is Republican or Democrat, is a vital part of what lawyers are called to do.
The Rule of Law Isn’t a Slogan
People throw around the phrase “rule of law” so often that it can start to sound abstract.
It isn’t.
The rule of law means we’re governed by legal principles, by constitutional limits, and by institutions that don’t bend to the preferences of one person in power. It means the government doesn’t get to punish critics by cutting off their ability to function. It means courts remain independent. It means lawyers remain free to advocate. And it means clients remain free to choose counsel without fear that doing so will bring government retaliation.
The amicus brief grounds that principle in one of the oldest and most important ideas in American law: we’re meant to be a government of laws, not of men [or women]. It argues that an attack on the legal profession is an attack on the rule of law itself, and by extension, on democracy.
That’s exactly right.
This Concerns Everyone, Not Just Lawyers
You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand what’s at stake here.
If law firms can be targeted for representing unpopular clients, then today’s target may be one law firm, but tomorrow’s target could be a nonprofit, a business, a news organization, a university, a religious institution, or an individual who needs legal counsel to challenge government overreach.
Once government can effectively say “represent this client and we’ll make your life miserable,” constitutional rights become fragile very quickly.
The practical effect is a chilling one.
Reuters reported that the D.C. Circuit has consolidated the appeals and set argument for May 14, 2026, while the targeted firms argue the orders were blatantly illegal and threaten the profession and the rule of law. Reuters also reported that several other major firms had previously reached deals with Trump to rescind or avoid similar executive orders. The amicus brief similarly argues that these orders have already made some firms less willing to challenge government action and have made it harder for civil-rights groups and vulnerable clients to find counsel.
That is how democratic norms erode, not always in one giant step, but in a series of punishments, warnings, and pressures that teach institutions to stay quiet.
Even the Government’s Own Position Has Been Unsteady
One of the most remarkable aspects of this saga is that Justice Department attorneys initially sought to dismiss the appeal, only for the government to reverse course only a few hours later.
This turn of events only sharpens the concern that this appeal is being driven less by any legitimate constitutional principle and more by a desire to preserve executive leverage over law firms that won’t bend.
That should alarm anyone who cares about the separation of powers and the independence of the justice system.
Why We Signed On
We signed onto this amicus brief because the issue is bigger than any one case, and it’s certainly bigger than any one law firm.
Lawyers don’t get to do their jobs only when representing popular clients or politically-safe causes. The whole point of an independent bar is that representation doesn’t depend on whether the government approves of the client, the cause, or the argument.
We also signed on because small businesses, nonprofits, public entities, workers, consumers, and individuals all depend on a legal system in which lawyers can advocate without intimidation. This isn’t some abstract fight among large national firms. The principle reaches every client – even ours! – who may someday need counsel to stand between them and unlawful government action.
Courts Must Hold the Line
The district courts that reviewed these executive orders held them unconstitutional. That is the right position, legally and institutionally.
Courts exist in part to hold the line when executive power crosses constitutional boundaries. If the judiciary doesn’t act decisively when the government punishes lawyers for their advocacy, then damage won’t stop with the legal profession. It will spread to the courts, to clients, and to public confidence in whether justice is really administered impartially.
Bedrock Principles Are Only Bedrock If We Defend Them
Democratic governance depends on more than elections. It depends on constitutional limits, independent courts, and lawyers who are free to challenge power without fear of retaliation.
That’s why this case matters.
The rule of law is not self-executing. It survives because judges enforce it, lawyers defend it, and citizens insist on it. When any administration tries to turn government power into a weapon against the legal profession, the response can’t be silence.
It has to be resistance grounded in law, principle, and courage.
That’s why we spoke up before. It’s why we’re speaking up now. And it’s why this appeal deserves the close attention of anyone who cares about the Constitution, the courts, and the continued strength of American democracy.
We could’ve remained silent. In many ways, that’s easier, but not in the long run. We’re here to be advocates, whether for the rule of law or for our clients.
