DC Circuit signals Trump’s law firm sanctions likely unlawful

WASHINGTON (CN) — A D.C. Circuit panel seemed likely Thursday to further block a set of executive orders President Donald Trump issued early in his administration targeting four major law firms that represented his perceived political enemies.

The three-judge panel heard arguments in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse’s ceremonial courtroom and appeared skeptical that Trump’s targeting of firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey amounted to a discretionary national security decision that courts are generally barred from reviewing.

Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy argued that the president’s executive orders “run afoul of the better part of the Bill of Rights” and threaten an American’s right to counsel, the separation of powers and the rule of law.

“The executive orders here strike at the heart of the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients,” Clement said. “Lawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals; thus, the executive orders strike at the heart of the rule of law and the zealous representation on which the judiciary and the adversary process depend.”

Clement said the president wanted to inflict “maximum punishment” on the firms by hitting them wherever possible, spreading a substantial chill throughout the legal community.

“I either keep my security clearance, or I can sue the Trump administration, not both,” Clement said, describing the climate.

Starting Feb. 25, 2025, Trump signed several executive orders and presidential memorandums against so-called “Big Law” firms — also including Paul Weiss and Covington & Burling — directing agency heads to review attorneys’ security clearances and any government contracts, as well as barring attorneys from government buildings, which would have included the federal courthouse in Washington.

Trump rescinded the order against Paul Weiss after it agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono representation on behalf of the administration a week later.

In the four executive orders, Trump fixated on the firms’ representation of certain Democrats and prior employment of certain employees he viewed as political enemies, such as former special counsel Robert Mueller and members of his team, as well as Andrew Weissmann and Marc Elias. Mueller retired from WilmerHale, and Elias left Perkins Coie in 2021.

Senior U.S. District Judges Beryl Howell, Richard Leon, John Bates and U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan each rejected Trump’s executive orders as clear viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment and struck down the executive orders in their entirety.

In March, the Trump administration briefly moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeal before reversing course the next day.

Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli — who is set to leave the agency at the end of May — argued that D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court precedent made clear the decision to revoke an individual’s security clearance is a discretionary national security decision, and thus, courts cannot second-guess it.

Kambli heavily relied on the 2024 D.C. Circuit case Lee v. Garland, where a former FBI agent challenged the revocation of his top-secret security clearance as unlawful discrimination based on his Chinese ancestry.

The appeals court rejected his appeal, citing the 1988 Supreme Court case *Department of the Navy v. Egan,*which precludes the courts from reviewing the merits of a decision not to grant a clearance.

U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, a Barack Obama appointee, raised a hypothetical where the president decides to revoke security clearances for law firms representing Catholic, Black and Asian individuals and asked if that would still be covered by Leeand *Egan. *

Kambli’s answer remained the same. He explained that case would still face the threshold question of “justiciability” before a judge could order any relief.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, also an Obama appointee, furthered the hypothetical and asked whether a president staying the decision was just because he “doesn’t like” those groups, rather than any national security determination, mattered.

Kambli replied that the issue was still covered by the two precedents and would need to raise another constitutional issue besides race discrimination.

In an exchange with Clement, U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, said the case seemed to “run smack into” Lee, noting the court would likely have to carve out a ruling that avoids the precedent in Egan.

Clement argued the fact both cases center on individual revocations leaves the door open for the court to review categorical bars, like in the firms’ cases. He added that, even as a self-avowed believer of the “unitary executive theory,” he still felt the courts could review en masse security clearance revocations.

Rao replied that argument meant he would no longer be a believer.

“There’s some things even the unitary executive cannot do,” Clement said.

Thursday’s arguments drew a significant crowd from the legal community, many of whom brought small paper signs in solidarity with the firms.

“I am a lawyer, I am WilmerHale,” one sign read, with versions for each of the four firms.

The signs spurred the U.S. Marshals to remind the court that any sort of demonstration, including the lifting of the signs, amounts to an effort to sway the judges and is thus prohibited.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy