The D.C. Circuit grilled DOJ lawyers May 14 over executive orders targeting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, signaling skepticism of the government's position.
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel heard oral arguments May 14 on the Trump administration's effort to revive executive orders targeting four major law firms, and the questioning ran sharply against the government [1]. The orders, directed at Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, revoked attorneys' security clearances, barred firm personnel from federal buildings, and directed agencies to review contracts held by the firms' clients [2]. The panel included two Democratic-appointed judges and one Republican-appointed judge [1].
The cases reached the D.C. Circuit after four separate district court judges had each found the underlying executive orders unconstitutional [2]. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement argued on behalf of the firms, and Department of Justice attorney Abhishek Kambli defended the administration's position [1]. The appeals stem from preliminary injunctions the district courts issued against enforcement of the orders, which the administration sought to stay and ultimately reverse on appeal [3].
From the bench, Judges Sri Srinivasan and Cornelia Pillard pressed the DOJ on two central questions: whether presidential decisions to revoke security clearances are entirely unreviewable in court, and whether the First Amendment shields law firms from executive orders that appear designed to punish them for their litigation choices and client representations [1]. The government's position, that security-clearance determinations fall within unreviewable executive discretion, drew pointed follow-up questions about how that principle could be squared with retaliatory intent evident in the orders' stated rationales [2]. The panel did not rule from the bench [3].
The significance of the eventual ruling extends beyond the four firms named in the orders. A decision endorsing broad, unreviewable executive authority to sanction law firms through administrative mechanisms could alter how private counsel approach representations adverse to the federal government. A ruling the other way would affirm that the First Amendment and due process impose limits on presidential power to punish legal advocacy [2]. The case is widely considered a candidate for Supreme Court review regardless of how the circuit decides [1].
No decision timeline has been set. The district court injunctions blocking enforcement of the orders remain in place pending the appeal [3].