Trump’s Law Firm Targeting Over Security Queried by Judges (1)

US appeals court judges on Thursday morning questioned whether President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting four law firms were a defensible use of his authority over security clearances.

Paul Clement, representing the firms, argued before the three-judge panel—two appointees by Obama and one by Trump—that Trump had used a “blunderbuss” approach in deciding access to government buildings, sidestepping a careful 13-step analysis the executive branch typically conducts for security dating back to World War II.

The goal of the orders is “maximizing punishment of law firms” for their client advocacy and “let’s hurt them everywhere we can,” Clement said. “The executive orders run afoul of the better part of the Bill of Rights.”

Four lower courts struck down as unconstitutional the orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey that threatened to restrict lawyers’ access to government buildings, cancel clients’ government contracts, and revoke lawyers’ security clearances.

The Justice Department lawyer arguing in favor of the orders, Abhishek Kambli, said law firms’ decisions to hire attorneys who had done improper conduct in the view of the president aren’t constitutionally protected. He also argued that reviewing security clearances is outside the authority of the judicial branch.

The judges—Sri Srinivasan, Cornelia Pillard, and Neomi Rao—pressed the parties on constitutional authority relating to stripping security clearances and the merit of the national security reasoning. The judges also pressed the government on its use of national security versus national interest in its defense of the president’s issuance of the executive orders.

Clement was hired by WilmerHale to bring the firm’s lawsuit in federal court before he was tapped by the other three—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—for this week’s oral advocacy. All of the lead counsel for the law firms were in attendance, and were seated next to Clement.

Some in attendance brought papers signaling their solidarity with the four law firms. Prior to the beginning of the hearing, court officials—flanked by a US marshal—advised those in attendance that they would be removed from the courtroom if they held up any signs in protest during the hearing.

Clement argued that the orders were in clear violation of the First Amendment, but extended beyond the free speech of the firms into the separation of powers and the Constitutional problem of government retaliating against lawyers and law firms for speech on behalf of their clients.

Clement posited that the government put everything in a “justiciability basket” because they don’t have a merits defense. The “absence is telling,” he said.

Kambli told the panel the executive orders do fall within the president’s authority in a bid to revive Trump’s sanctions. He emphasized judicial restraint in the face of executive power to claim the president has authority to monitor access to classified government materials, as well as order agencies to investigate private law firms for discrimination.

The judges also heard arguments from trial lawyer Abbe Lowell, who is representing another Trump-targeted attorney, Mark Zaid. Lowell cited case law similar to what Clement used in his arguments, and the panel pressed the attorney on judicial review and first amendment retaliation claims.

Kambli argued that the president is not bound by the substance of an existing order, meaning the president’s stripping of Zaid’s security clearance is not unlawful.

The judges will now weigh the arguments before deciding whether to overturn district court rulings that blocked the Trump administration’s sanctions last year against Zaid and the four Big Law firms.

The case is Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, et al, D.C. Cir., 25-05241, 5/14/26