Trump’s Orders Against Law Firms Raise Constitutional Concerns, Experts Say
Experts say Trump’s actions may violate the First Amendment’s protections against government interference in speech and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The orders, issued Thursday, direct Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and other agency heads to bar Perkins Coie attorneys from federal buildings and revoke their security clearances. Trump also ordered a review aimed at terminating the firm's government contracts and those of its clients.
A separate February 25 order targeting Covington revoked security clearances for two lawyers who advised Smith rather than affecting all attorneys at the firm.Security clearances allow access to classified information, and while the government has broad authority to grant and revoke them, due process requires that affected parties receive notice and a chance to challenge such actions, said Evan Zoldan, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law.Trump’s order accused Perkins Coie of engaging in "dishonest and dangerous activity" and practicing "racial discrimination" in hiring—an apparent reference to the firm’s diversity initiatives, which Trump and his allies have criticized. The order also singled out the firm’s role in representing Clinton’s campaign and called for investigations into other influential law firms over compliance with anti-discrimination laws.Perkins Coie responded by calling the order "patently unlawful" and vowing to challenge it. Covington defended its decision to represent Smith, stating, "For more than 100 years, Covington has represented clients facing government investigations, consistent with the best traditions of the legal profession."Smith previously led two federal cases against Trump—one related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election and another involving classified documents retained after leaving office. Trump, who pleaded not guilty in both cases, has called Smith "deranged" and denounced the prosecutions as politically motivated.Experts say Trump’s actions set a dangerous precedent. Maryam Jamshidi of the University of Colorado Law School said it is unclear what constitutional authority permits the restrictions on Perkins Coie’s government contracts. Zoldan added that the Supreme Court has ruled that when government accusations harm a firm’s reputation, due process requires an official proceeding to allow for a challenge.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields defended Trump’s actions, saying they are part of his commitment to "end the weaponization of government and protect the nation from partisan actors."Federal records show that Perkins Coie and Covington have held contracts with various agencies and represented major federal contractors, including Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. Microsoft declined to comment, while the other companies did not immediately respond.Claire Finkelstein of the University of Pennsylvania Law School argued that revoking security clearances deprives attorneys of their ability to practice law effectively. "By removing these security clearances, they have taken away a piece of their livelihood without due process," she said.Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley said Trump's targeting of firms based on their clients could constitute "blatant viewpoint discrimination," violating the First Amendment.Legal experts note that no previous U.S. president has taken such direct action against law firms over client representation. UCLA law professor Jon Michaels said Trump’s actions reflect his long-standing vow of "retribution" against political opponents.The American Bar Association (ABA) also condemned the move. "The government is punishing two prominent law firms simply because they represent parties the administration does not like," ABA President William Bay said in a statement.Trump’s orders could discourage law firms from representing clients opposing his administration, potentially reshaping the legal landscape for years to come.