Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION, NEWS TRENDS—Amicus briefs filed in support of Perkins Coie by two large groups, including over 500 law firms and over 345 former judges, (Apr 7, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown

“Those Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself. The judiciary should act with resolve—now—to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases.”

Alongside similar motions by other interested parties, a group of 346 former judges and a group of 504 law firms have separately moved a federal district court in the District of Columbia to allow them to each file a brief amicus curiae in support of Perkins Coie LLP’s motion for summary judgment and relief against the Trump administration over an executive order targeting the plaintiff, entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.”

Law firms unite. In the amicus brief put forward by the law firms—including those such as Arnold & Porter, Cohen Millstein Sellers & Toll, Covington & Burling, Crowell & Moring, and Outten & Golding—they argue that the EO should be “should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles.”

“But something even more fundamental is at stake,” they argue. “In recent weeks, the President has issued not one but five executive orders imposing punitive sanctions on leading law firms in undisguised retaliation for representations that the firm, or its former partners, have undertaken, and more may be in the offing. [footnote omitted] Those Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself. The judiciary should act with resolve—now—to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases.”

Former judges unite. In their proposed amicus brief, the former judges (a mix of retired state and federal court judges and justices, including several former appellate level Chief Justices and Chief Judges) argue that the EO “undermines the rule of law by threatening the independence of lawyers and litigants to petition courts to redress their grievances. The Order thus undermines the constitutional role of the courts as independent forums for adjudicating disputes. It also threatens the ability of an independent judiciary to regulate the conduct of lawyers who appear in court.”

Briefly put, they argue: “The fundamental principles of just adjudication are simple and apply equally to allegations made against a lawyer as to allegations in any other case: allegations must be supported by facts, facts must be proved in a fair proceeding, and sanctions cannot precede fair adjudication. Any other sequence is contrary to law and lacks both the substance and the appearance of justice.” They believe the order violates those principles for four reasons: (1) the order imposes improper political restrictions on access to the courts; (2) the order undermines the professional independence of counsel; (3) the order improperly supplants judicial regulation of litigation conduct; and (4) the order promotes hostility towards adjudication and judicial officers.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00716.

News: LitigationNewsTrends WhiteHouseNews IndividualRights