Appeals Court to Hear Arguments on Trump Administration Bid to Reinstate Law Firm Sanctions

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is set to hear arguments Thursday over the Trump administration's bid to reinstate executive orders that sought sanctions against four law firms. The orders targeted Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey, Wilmer Hale and Jenner & Block over their past representation or employment of individuals perceived as political opponents of President Trump.

Four separate district court judges previously determined the executive orders were unconstitutional and granted permanent restraining orders blocking their implementation. Some of the district court rulings described the effort in strong terms. The administration has argued that the orders fell within presidential authority to address issues including national security risks and discrimination.

At least nine other law firms entered into agreements with the Trump administration to provide pro bono legal services for causes supported by the White House in exchange for avoiding similar executive orders. Those agreements totaled nearly $1 billion according to administration calculations.

Several of the settling firms saw high-profile attorneys depart after the deals were announced. The attorneys described the agreements as a response to government pressure. In March the Justice Department notified the court and the firms that it intended to withdraw its appeal of the injunctions.

The department reversed that position within 24 hours and stated it would continue pursuing the appeal.

Arguments Before the Appeals Court The law firms are seeking to uphold the injunctions that bar the administration from implementing sanctions. Those sanctions would have included barring firm attorneys from accessing certain federal properties and restricting their security clearances.

The firms stated in court filings that the orders, if allowed to take effect, would effectively bankrupt them. The administration countered that the district court rulings represented an impermissible intrusion on executive branch authority. "This appeal of those sweeping decisions is not about the sanctity of the American law firm; it is about lower courts encroaching on the constitutional power of the President to discuss and address invidious racial discrimination, national security risks, and other problems with certain law firms," DOJ attorneys said in a court filing in March.

It remains unclear whether the March reversal by the Justice Department will be addressed during Thursday's oral arguments.