What we know now about the Trump administration and justice system
Could the Trump administrations actions against lawyers and judges set a precedent? Here is what we know now.
Law firms are taking different approaches to the Trump administration’s executive orders that target their business: some are suing, while others have entered into agreements to mollify the president.
President Donald Trump said Friday that Skadden, one major firm, agreed to provide $100 million-worth of free legal work to causes that he and the firm support. It was the second firm to enter into such an agreement.
“This was essentially a settlement,” Trump said Friday. “What’s gone on is a shame, but we very much appreciate their coming to the table,” Trump said.
The announced deal came the same day that two other law firms, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, joined law firm Perkins Coie in suing the administration over executive orders that threaten their work. Each firm is alleging the Trump administration has violated their constitutional rights, including to free speech.
Trump had not signed an order targeting Skadden, but the agreement appears intended to remove the risk that he would.
The contrasting developments reflect an uncertain future for the Trump administration’s efforts to target law firms that have hired employees or represented clients in ways Trump dislikes. The orders, which target firms’ government contracts and security clearances, and their clients’ contracts, have raised fears that law firms will resist representing clients challenging the administration.
“These orders send a clear message to the legal profession: Cease certain representations adverse to the government and renounce the Administration’s critics—or suffer the consequences,” Jenner & Block said in its lawsuit in a D.C. federal court.
A spokesperson for Jenner & Block referred USA TODAY to a public statement on a website the firm has created about its lawsuit. There, the firm says it is standing strong against unlawful government action.
“To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA,” the firm said.
Skadden and WilmerHale didn’t respond to requests for comment.
On Wednesday, Trump boasted that firms are eager to make a deal.
“They’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much.’ Nobody can believe it,” Trump said. “Law firms are just saying, ‘Where do I sign? Where do I sign?'”
To sue or to settle? Law firms split amid chilling-effect fears
Another law firm, Paul Weiss, entered a deal with the administration last week to escape similar targeting. The firm agreed to devote $40 million of free legal services to causes both it and the Trump administration supports.
However, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale join a third firm, Perkins Coie, in suing rather than settling with the administration. Perkins Coie won a temporary restraining order March 12 blocking Trump’s executive action against it from going into effect.
“I am sure many in the legal profession are watching in horror about what Perkins Coie is going through here,” Judge Beryl Howell, who issued the restraining order, said at a hearing, according to Reuters.
The executive order against Jenner & Block complains that the firm re-hired a lawyer, Andrew Weissmann, who was part of Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference to benefit Trump in the 2016 presidential election. It also alleges the firm uses race-based targets to discrimiante against employees.
Jenner & Block said in its lawsuit that Weissmann is no longer at the firm, and targeting that alleged association shows the order is designed to infringe on the firm’s First Amendment right to freely associate. The firm also said it already prohibits unlawfully considering race in employment.
The order targeting WilmerHale complains that it hired Robert Mueller after the Russia investigation and shows partisanship in its choice of clients. It also lodges similar allegations of racially-discriminatory employment practices.
In its lawsuit, WilmerHale described the order as an “unprecedented assault” on the legal principle that no one is penalized simply for bringing or defending against a lawsuit.
“The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale, its employees, and its clients to speak freely, petition the courts and other government institutions, and associate with the counsel of their choice without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials,” it said.
The executive orders could be part of a strategy from the Trump administration to escape court review of other executive actions, according to David Lat, a lawyer-turned-journalist who writes about the legal profession.
“If you can actually intimidate law firms into not litigating against your administration, that is hugely powerful. That will help you advance the rest of your agenda,” Lat told USA TODAY.
Contributing: Joey Garrison