Hundreds of law firms, former judges sign onto briefs in support of Perkins Coie
Hundreds of law firms and former judges have signed onto friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Perkins Coie as the law firm challenges President Trump's executive order targeting it.
More than 500 law firms and 300 retired judges asked for leave to file two amicus briefs condemning Trump's order stripping security clearances from and severing government ties with the major law firm, which previously did work for Democrats.
'Although we do not take this step lightly, our abiding commitment to preserving the integrity of the American legal system leaves us no choice but to join together to oppose the (executive order) that is at issue in this litigation,' wrote Donald Verrilli, a former solicitor general under former President Obama, in the law firms' brief.
The brief asks U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who is overseeing the Perkins Coie challenge, to decide the case in the law firm's favor and indefinitely block Trump's order.
Few Big Law firms signed the brief, though Covington & Burling, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block — others targeted by Trump in executive orders — did. The firms Arnold & Porter and Freshfields LLP also signed the brief.
Gupta Wessler LLP, whose founding principal, Deepak Gupta, is leading numerous challenges to Trump's executive actions, signed the brief as well.
The amicus brief signed by the judges, whose 'views on political and social issues vary,' argued that zealous legal representation is an 'indispensable element of the rule of law.'
'Amici share an interest in ensuring both the substance and the appearance of justice in the adjudication of disputes,' their brief reads. 'This requires — always — preserving the freedom of lawyers to advocate for their clients with candor and with zeal, thus providing judges with the complete legal and factual record needed for fair adjudication.'
Trump's crackdown on major law firms has raised alarm across the legal industry, but Big Law has split on how to respond.
While Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, have each sued over Trump's executive orders against them, the law firms Paul, Weiss; Skadden Arps; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank have struck deals with Trump. The settlements commit to pro bono work for causes championed by the administration and other agreements.
In the Perkins Coie challenge, a federal judge has temporarily blocked parts of Trump's executive order from being enforced. The administration may not prevent Perkins Coie personnel from entering federal government buildings nor require government contractors to disclose if they do business with the firm.
Howell, who issued the temporary restraining order, said at the time that Trump's executive order against Perkins Coie likely violates the First Amendment for retaliating against protected speech and likely runs afoul of due process protections.
'The judiciary should act with resolve — now — to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases,' Verrilli wrote on behalf of the law firms.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A.
The Trump administration announced Saturday that National Guard troops were being sent to Los Angeles — an action Gov. Gavin Newsom said he opposed. President Trump is activating the Guard by using powers that have been invoked only rarely. Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to 'temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.' Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad. Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation's leading constitutional law scholars, said 'for the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling.' 'It is using the military domestically to stop dissent,' said Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. 'It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done.' Tom Homan, the Trump administration's 'border czar,' announced the plan to send the National Guard in an interview on Fox News on Saturday as protesters continued confronting immigration agents during raids. 'This is about enforcing the law,' Homan said. 'We're not going to apologize for doing it. We're stepping up.' 'We're already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing,' he added. 'We're gonna bring the National Guard in tonight. We're gonna continue doing our job. We're gonna push back on these people.' Newsom criticized the federal action, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was 'purposefully inflammatory' and would 'only escalate tensions.' The governor called the president and they spoke for about 40 minutes, according to the governor's office. Critics have raised concerns that Trump also might try to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to activate troops as part of his campaign to deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants. The president has the authority under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that Trump's use of the military domestically would be misguided and dangerous. According to the ACLU, Title 10 activation of National Guard troops has historically been rare and Congress has prohibited troops deployed under the law from providing 'direct assistance' to civilian law enforcement — under both a separate provision of Title 10 as well as the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act, however, is viewed as an exception to the prohibitions under the Posse Comitatus Act. In 1958, President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's decision ending racial segregation in schools, and to defend Black students against a violent mob. Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, wrote in a recent article that if Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act 'to activate federalized troops for mass deportation — whether at the border or somewhere else in the country — it would be unprecedented, unnecessary, and wrong.' Chemerinsky said invoking the Insurrection Act and nationalizing a state's National Guard has been reserved for extreme circumstances where there are no other alternatives to maintain the peace. Chemerinsky said he feared that in this case the Trump administration was seeking 'to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.' In 1992, California Gov. Pete Wilson requested that President George H.W. Bush use the National Guard to quell the unrest in Los Angeles after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. That was under a different provision of federal law that allows the president to use military force in the United States. That provision applies if a state governor or legislature requests it. California politics editor Phil Willon contributed to this report.
13 minutes ago
Trump attends UFC championship fight in NJ, taking a break from politics, Musk feud
NEWARK, N.J. -- President Donald Trump walked out to a thunderous standing ovation just ahead of the start of the UFC pay-per-view card at the Prudential Center on Saturday night, putting his public feud with tech billionaire Elon Musk on hold to instead watch the fierce battles inside the cage. Trump was accompanied by UFC President Dana White and the pair headed to their cageside seats to Kid Rock's 'American Bad Ass.' Trump and White did the same for UFC's card last November at Madison Square Garden, only then they were joined by Musk. Trump shook hands with fans and supporters — a heavyweight lineup that included retired boxing champion Mike Tyson — on his way to the cage. Trump was joined by his daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, along with son Eric Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump shook hands with the UFC broadcast team that included Joe Rogan. Rogan hosted Trump on his podcast for hours in the final stages of the campaign last year. UFC fans went wild for Trump and held mobile devices in their outstretched arms to snap pictures of him. Trump arrived in time for the start of a card set to include two championship fights. Julianna Peña and Merab Dvalishvili were scheduled to each defend their 135-pound championships. UFC fighter Kevin Holland won the first fight with Trump in the building, scaled the cage and briefly chatted with the President before his post-fight interview.
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Gina Ortiz Jones, a Progressive, Is Elected San Antonio's Mayor
Gina Ortiz Jones, a Filipino American who served as under secretary of the Air Force during the Biden administration, won a runoff election on Saturday to become the mayor of San Antonio, making her the first openly gay leader of the seventh-largest city in the country. Ms. Jones, 44, defeated Rolando Pablos, 57, a Mexican immigrant and former Texas secretary of state known for his close ties to Gov. Greg Abbott, a conservative Republican. 'San Antonio showed up and showed out,' Ms. Jones told a group of supporters Saturday night, and then referring to voters she added. 'We reminded them that our city is about compassion and it's about leading with everybody in mind.' 'So I look forward to being a mayor for all.' The election was a test of Latino sentiment after the dramatic shift of Hispanic voters toward Donald J. Trump in 2024. Kamala Harris handily won San Antonio, a Latino-majority city and Democratic stronghold, but Mr. Trump made significant gains in the city on his way to a 14-percentage-point victory in Texas. On Saturday night, Mr. Pablos conceded. 'We tried. It was a very tough race.' Though technically nonpartisan, Mr. Pablos did not downplay his ties to Republican leaders in Texas, nor did Ms. Jones shy from her longstanding Democratic connections. Heading into Saturday, she was seen as the front-runner, having earned the largest portion of the voting bloc in a crowded, 27-candidate election in May. Then, she won 27 percent of the vote to Mr. Pablos's 17 percent. She was also closely aligned with the politics of the outgoing mayor, Ron Nirenberg, who was first elected in 2017 and is term limited after four consecutive wins. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
