Why Our Firm Signed the Amicus Brief Supporting Perkins Coie

We talk about our country as a nation of laws. That is in contrast with kings. So when the colonists came to America, they wanted to make sure they were governed by laws. Unfortunately, we are coming dangerously close to losing the rule of law.

An amicus brief was recently filed in support of the Perkins Coie law firm, the first law firm that the current administration targeted as a perceived political enemy. Nace Law Group is proud to be among the 507 firms across the country that united to defend foundational legal principles by signing this brief. At Nace Law Group, we will always stand up for legal independence and the rule of law.

Perkins Coie and the executive order

The law firm Perkins Coie was the first to become subject to an Executive Order (EO) that limits the ability to contract with the federal government and access federal buildings. It appears that the order is in response to the firm’s past, including its involvement with the Russia investigation.

In response to the order, Perkins Coie filed a challenge to the EO, stating that the Order violates the Constitution. A federal judge issued a temporary injunction on the enforcement of the EO as the case proceeds.

The legal community’s response

An amicus brief (also called a “friend of the court” brief) is a brief that groups and individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit can file to voice their perspectives and legal arguments to bolster the side that they favor. Those who file these briefs do so when the legal issue the case is deciding will impact them or will impact society at large.

There has been a wave of support for the amicus brief, which former U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and prominent litigator Nathan P. Eimer wrote. Over 500 law firms have signed. Other organizations, including the ACLU and the Cato Institute, also filed amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie. However, many of the nation’s largest firms declined to sign the brief because of political or business concerns.

Arguments against the Trump EO

There are several legal grounds for arguing against the order, including the following:

Executive overreach

The order allows the president to punish firms based on their decision to represent clients who are out of favor with the Administration or the president. This raises questions regarding the separation of powers and allows the president to bypass due process protections, which are afforded to those who travel through normal legal channels.

Constitutional violations
The EO also violates several amendments to the Constitution. For instance, the EO appears to violate the following:

• First Amendment – By chilling free association and the right to petition the government for redress, the EO violates the First Amendment.
• Fifth Amendment – The EO violates the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process protections.
  Sixth Amendment – The EO also violates the Sixth Amendment, which protects the right to counsel.

Bill of attainder argument

A bill of attainder is a legislative act that punishes a specific individual or group without a judicial trial. If the EO allows punishment without legislative protections, it is a constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder.

Right to counsel and legal representation

The Constitution protects a client’s right to legal representation without interference or intimidation from the government. Also, legal precedent protects the attorney-client relationship. The EO threatens both of these.

Threat to the rule of law

The EO serves as a threat to the rule of law and constitutional governance. By penalizing firms for the clients they represent, the EO creates a “climate of fear,” which can prevent access to justice and legal independence. It’s important for the courts to restore the separation of powers to protect the rule of law.

Why Nace Law Group signed the amicus brief

Our decision to sign the amicus brief stems from our commitment to keeping the United States a nation of laws. We are deeply committed to constitutional principles, and signing reaffirms our dedication to the independence of the legal profession. It should be every client’s right to seek legal representation without any interference from the Executive branch.

The court’s decision in this case could set an important precedent for the legal profession and the rights of clients nationwide. Nace Law Group will continue to support constitutional protections, the independence of the bar, and the upholding of judicial integrity. We believe it is important for us to stand up now in defense of our profession and the judicial system. If the government can punish lawyers for representing people who are adversarial to it, our system will cease to function. We are proud to sign this brief and will continue to defend the legal and constitutional principles that allow justice for all. To learn more about the Nace Law Group or to get in touch with one of our attorneys, reach out to us today.