Amicus brief exposes legal community divide over response to Trump's orders

An amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie LLP in its fight against President Donald Trump's executive order imposing what the firm called "severe sanctions," filed Friday, laid bare the divisions among the nation's major law firms.

The brief by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP partner Donald B. Verrilli Jr., a former U.S. solicitor general during the Obama administration, and signed by 504 law firms, said the president's sanctions against Perkins Coie and four other firms "pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself."

Verrilli wrote the amicus brief to support Perkins Coie's motion for a preliminary injunction blocking Trump's suspension of the firm's security clearances and limits on its employees' access to some federal government buildings.

"The looming threat posed by the Executive Order at issue in this case and the others like it is not lost on anyone practicing law in this country today: any controversial representation challenging actions of the current administration (or even causes it disfavors) now brings with it the risk of devastating retaliation," he wrote.

"Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create," Verrilli added. Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., 25-cv-00716 (D. D.C., filed March 11, 2025).

A March 6 White House statement said the suspension of Perkins Coie's security clearances, contracts, and access stemmed from the firm's 2016 hiring of Fusion GPS to create a dossier targeting Donald Trump while representing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and its role in promoting claims that Trump colluded with Russia during the presidential campaign. The statement also accused the firm of racial discrimination, citing internal quotas for hiring and promotion.

While many major law firms signed onto the brief for Perkins Coie, most the largest U.S. firms did not - attempting to steer clear of a fight with the Trump administration.

Several firms - including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Milbank LLP - have struck deals with Trump in which they have agreed to provide free legal services to the administration and changed their internal policies, effectively agreeing to act as Trump's pro bono counsel.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP is in talks with the Trump administration to strike a similar deal, according to a Thursday report in the Wall Street Journal.

The most profitable U.S.-based international firms are not listed as having signed the amicus brief - Kirkland, Latham & Watkins LLP, DLA Piper, Baker McKenzie, Dentons US LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, White & Case LLP, Palo Alto-based Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and two Los Angeles-based firms - Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

Palo Alto-based Cooley LLP, whose San Diego-based partner Michael A. Attanasio is representing one of the firms targeted by Trump, Jenner & Block LLP, also did not sign the amicus brief.

But many other firms did, including Jenner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Mountain View-based Fenwick & West LLP, Freshfields US LLP, Hausfeld LLP, San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Los Angeles-based Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, Los Angeles-based Munger and San Francisco's Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, which also is fighting a Trump executive order, also signed the amicus brief.

San Francisco boutique Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, which has led the charge against Trump's executive orders in a New York Times opinion piece and public statements, also signed the amicus brief. Robert A. Van Nest, one of the firm's name partners, said the firm has received a lot of backing for its position.

"The reaction to our piece has been overwhelmingly positive and we have received thanks and support from lawyers across the country," he wrote in an email.

Senior U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia granted a temporary restraining order last month blocking Trump's order against Perkins Coie.

Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss Perkins Coie's complaint, arguing that it is incorrect in arguing that Trump's executive order is a sanction.

"The Executive Order directs agencies to do what they should already be doing, declines to contract with entities who act inconsistently with valid social policies regarding discrimination, and calls for the lawful examination of security clearances and government access of employees of Plaintiff's firm," he wrote.

"Plaintiff's claim is at best too early and, as any guidance will be consistent with the law, will eventually fail on the merits," Lawson added.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression also filed an amicus brief, as did 346 retired federal and state court judges in a proposed brief filed Friday by Oakland attorney Donald Falk.