Legal experts have raised concerns that President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders targeting two prominent law firms may violate constitutional protections and could be seen as retaliatory actions against lawyers who have opposed him in the past. The firms in question, Perkins Coie and Covington, have represented Trump’s adversaries, including Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed during President Joe Biden’s administration.
According to experts interviewed by Reuters, Trump’s actions against these firms may infringe on constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Trump directed government officials to restrict access and end security clearances for lawyers at Perkins Coie, as well as initiate reviews to terminate their contracts with federal agencies. A separate executive order targeted Covington, revoking security clearances for two lawyers who advised Smith on cases involving Trump.
To ensure compliance with due process requirements, legal scholars suggest that Trump’s orders should have provided notice and an opportunity for the firms to challenge the allegations against them. Trump’s order accused Perkins Coie of “dishonest and dangerous activity,” as well as criticized its diversity hiring practices and representation of Clinton’s campaign.
In response, Perkins Coie stated that Trump’s order is “patently unlawful” and that they intend to challenge it. Covington defended its representation of clients facing government investigations, including Smith, who oversaw cases against Trump related to his election loss and handling of government documents.
Overall, legal experts are concerned that Trump’s actions against these law firms may raise constitutional questions and are viewed as retaliatory measures against lawyers who have opposed him.
In 2021, Trump left office amid facing criminal charges. He pleaded not guilty in both cases, which did not go to trial. Trump has criticized Smith as “deranged” and accused him of being part of a politically motivated “witch hunt.” Trump also faced criminal charges in two other instances. In the one case that went to trial, Trump was convicted last year in a New York state court on 34 felony charges related to hush money paid to a porn star. Trump has vowed to hold accountable the officials responsible for the criminal cases.
Experts find it legally challenging to contest the termination of security clearances, but see it as questionable to restrict Perkins Coie’s government work without clear constitutional authority. Trump’s negative remarks against Perkins Coie could harm the firm, requiring an official process for the accused to challenge such accusations. The White House stated that Trump is keeping his promise to stop government weaponization and shield the nation from partisan actors.
Federal records reveal that Perkins Coie and Covington have had contracts with various federal agencies and currently represent companies with federal contracts. Some of Perkins Coie’s clients include Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing, with security clearances enabling them to handle sensitive government matters. While Microsoft declined to comment, the other companies did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
Law professors emphasize that lawyers’ reliance on security clearances to serve clients is integral to their practice. Removing these clearances, they argue, deprives lawyers of a crucial aspect of their livelihood without due process. Trump’s targeting of Covington and Perkins Coie over their clients raises concerns regarding free speech protections, potentially constituting viewpoint discrimination.
Legal scholars anticipate that legal challenges against the orders could be complex and drawn-out due to their unprecedented nature. They note the rarity of a U.S. president taking official action against a law firm for representing a client. Trump’s actions have been criticized for showing a disregard for the rule of law and potentially deterring law firms from taking on certain clients.
American Bar Association President William Bay stated that clients should be able to consult with lawyers without government interference. Bay expressed concern that the government has chosen to penalize two well-known law firms for representing parties that are not favored by the administration. This information was reported by Mike Scarcella in Washington and edited by Will Dunham and David Bario.
