The Trump administration’s decision to retaliate against the President’s former Biglaw adversaries is unprecedented in American history. Most of the focus has been on Trump’s audacity or Biglaw’s repeated cowardice, but let’s take a second to think about the judges who have to deal with this mess. When deciding matters of first impression, you really want to make sure that you’re seeing all of the angles as clearly as you can. Deciding the matter in good faith may require re-reading a couple of cases — even going back to basics and dusting off some Con Law readings from your 1L years is fair game. But you know what’s better than consulting the textbook? Whoever wrote the book you’re consulting. And at this point, that might apply to all of your books. Hundreds of law professors (363, to be exact) specializing in Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, and Legal History recently submitted an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie. The professors aren’t pulling any punches either. Here’s a snippet of the summary of argument from the brief:
The President’s Order is a self-declared act of retribution that targets a law firm for representing clients and causes the President disfavors. In inflicting this retribution, the Order contradicts centuries of precedent safeguarding free speech, the right of association, and the right to petition. These precedents establish that the First Amendment “prohibits government officials from ‘relying on the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 176 (2024) (quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963)). Targeting Perkins Coie for representing clients and espousing views the President dislikes is viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.
It goes on to state that the executive order targeting Perkins Coie violates the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment, and threatens the rule of law. Beyond being an interesting read outright, it is so clearly expressed that it is, unsurprisingly, a teaching exercise. It is ready made for anyone who needs to brush up on their Con Law because of time constraints, be it because they are presiding over a declining country’s rapid departure from the rule of law or because they need to cram for an upcoming law exam. You can read the motion for leave to file and the brief proper on the following pages.
Earlier: The American Constitution Society Calls On Quiet Law School Deans To Speak Up
Thousands Of Lawyers Sign Open Letter To Defend The Rule Of Law From Executive Attack
Over 50 Bar Organizations Stand Up For The Rule Of Law
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who is learning to swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.
The post Several Hundred Law Professors File Amicus Brief Against Trump’s Attacks On Biglaw appeared first on Above the Law.
The Trump administration’s decision to retaliate against the President’s former Biglaw adversaries is unprecedented in American history. Most of the focus has been on Trump’s audacity or Biglaw’s repeated cowardice, but let’s take a second to think about the judges who have to deal with this mess. When deciding matters of first impression, you really want to make sure that you’re seeing all of the angles as clearly as you can. Deciding the matter in good faith may require re-reading a couple of cases — even going back to basics and dusting off some Con Law readings from your 1L years is fair game. But you know what’s better than consulting the textbook? Whoever wrote the book you’re consulting. And at this point, that might apply to all of your books. Hundreds of law professors (363, to be exact) specializing in Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, and Legal History recently submitted an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie. The professors aren’t pulling any punches either. Here’s a snippet of the summary of argument from the brief:
The President’s Order is a self-declared act of retribution that targets a law firm for representing clients and causes the President disfavors. In inflicting this retribution, the Order contradicts centuries of precedent safeguarding free speech, the right of association, and the right to petition. These precedents establish that the First Amendment “prohibits government officials from ‘relying on the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 176 (2024) (quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963)). Targeting Perkins Coie for representing clients and espousing views the President dislikes is viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.
It goes on to state that the executive order targeting Perkins Coie violates the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment, and threatens the rule of law. Beyond being an interesting read outright, it is so clearly expressed that it is, unsurprisingly, a teaching exercise. It is ready made for anyone who needs to brush up on their Con Law because of time constraints, be it because they are presiding over a declining country’s rapid departure from the rule of law or because they need to cram for an upcoming law exam. You can read the motion for leave to file and the brief proper on the following pages.
Earlier: The American Constitution Society Calls On Quiet Law School Deans To Speak Up
Thousands Of Lawyers Sign Open Letter To Defend The Rule Of Law From Executive Attack
Over 50 Bar Organizations Stand Up For The Rule Of Law
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who is learning to swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.
