An appeals court heard arguments on Thursday in a case challenging President Donald Trump's ability to sanction some of the nation's most prestigious law firms over their ties to clients and representatives he dislikes. Attorney Paul Clement, representing the firms, told a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that Trump's executive orders "strike at the heart of the rule of law" and must remain blocked.
Arguments Presented
Clement argued that Trump impermissibly punished the firms because of their relationships with clients and attorneys who "raised the president's ire." He stated, "The executive orders here strike at the heart of the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients. Lawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals."
Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli countered that district court judges rushed to judgment and overstepped their authority because they "clearly didn't like the content" of Trump's orders. Kambli asserted, "President Trump is not beneath the law. He is entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court and this court's precedent on his authority to decide matters such as security clearance determinations and investigating anti-discrimination."
Background of the Case
District court judges in Washington, D.C., have consistently ruled that the White House cannot enforce Trump's executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale. Trump sanctioned these firms for having attorneys who worked on matters he opposed or were associated with prosecutors who investigated him. The orders suspended security clearances, terminated federal contracts, and barred employees from federal buildings. Other major firms preemptively reached settlements to avoid similar orders, collectively dedicating hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services for causes supported by the Trump administration.
The panel did not specify when it would rule after Thursday's two-hour hearing.
