Protecting Law Firms From Unconstitutional Political Retaliation (Perkins Coie LLP, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.)

Shortly after being sworn into office, President Donald Trump issued multiple executive orders (EOs) targeting major national law firms, several of which engage in election law and voting rights cases. The EOs directed all employees of these firms to be stripped of security clearances and denied access to federal buildings, as well as ordering federal agencies to halt any ongoing contracted work.  

Although several law firms bowed to the pressure and cut deals with the administration to avoid sanctions, four law firms sued, arguing that the EOs violated the First Amendment and their clients’ right to counsel.

It is clear that a major reason why these four firms are being targeted by the Trump administration is their legal representation or association with the president’s electoral and partisan opponents and their advocacy for voting rights. Several of these firms litigated multiple election-related lawsuits following the 2020 presidential election, including one firm which represented an opposing party in 60+ lawsuits in which President Trump or his allies attempted to overturn the results.  

Despite the claims of the government, the intention of these EOs was clearly not to protect the administration from a viable security threat — it is a blatant attempt to punish, intimidate and suppress the legal advocacy of anyone working against the current president’s political interests.  

CLC’s brief highlights how these EOs attempt to weaponize presidential power to retaliate against any law firm willing to advance voting rights or to represent the president’s political or electoral opponents. By doing so, the Trump administration unlawfully threatens these firms’ First Amendment right to bring these cases forward.  

What’s at Stake?

This attempt to suppress the free speech of legal advocates comes at the same time the administration actively seeks to exert control over our federal elections and usurp power constitutionally given to the states and Congress.  

This context illustrates why these EOs are not only a violation of the First Amendment but also a danger to our democracy; as CLC argues in our brief, voters need access to legal resources to both protect their individual rights and safeguard electoral processes like voter registration, redistricting and access to the ballot. Sanctioning attorneys for litigating against threats to the electoral process is just another way the president is attempting to limit the resources available to Americans seeking legal recourse.  

Election lawyers play a critical role in protecting the health of our democracy. A legal system that provides representation and pathways to justice to all Americans — regardless of political identity — is a strength, not a weakness, of our democracy. The courts must uphold the constitutional right for any law firm to choose who they represent and advance meaningful challenges to attempts by the president to unlawfully manipulate our elections.