The American Bar Association sued the Trump administration Monday, arguing President Trump’s wide-ranging push to punish law firms is unconstitutional. It joined several targeted firms that have filed suit against the government.
The lawsuit takes aim at a series of controversial orders signed by Mr. Trump that direct the government to cut off security clearances, contracts and even federal building access for some of the nation’s largest law firms. The orders often fault the firms for taking on certain pro bono clients, associating with Mr. Trump’s legal foes or engaging in diversity, equity and inclusion practices that the administration claims are discriminatory.
The suit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., argues Mr. Trump has “used the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like,” in violation of the First Amendment.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the lawsuit “clearly frivolous.”
“The President has always had discretion over which contracts the government enters into and who receives security clearances. His exercise of these core executive functions cannot be dictated by the ABA, a private organization, or the courts. The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue,” Fields wrote in a statement to CBS News.
The bar association’s lawsuit cites the deals struck by several law firms, which promised hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono work to causes favored by the administration in order to avoid future targeting by the government.
It also argues the Trump administration’s gambit has led to a “chilling effect,” intimidating some law firms into not taking pro bono cases that run counter to the Trump administration’s agenda — especially in immigration-related matters.
The American Bar Association said it has been a victim of this chilling effect. The organization, which counts hundreds of thousands of attorneys as members, wrote in the suit that it has had trouble finding law firms willing to represent it in pro bono cases.
The group has tangled with the Trump administration in the past: The Justice Department has said it will not pay for its staff to attend ABA events and has taken aim at the ABA’s diversity policies. The group sued the government earlier this year for cutting off some training grants, arguing it was being punished for protected speech, leading a judge to block the policy.
The ABA alleged in Monday’s suit that in a lawsuit over grant cutoffs, it “was unable to obtain pro bono representation by any of the firms it contacted.”
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare that Mr. Trump’s orders are unconstitutional and enjoin the administration from taking similar actions.
“Whoever wins the next election will be free to squelch dissent based on policy disagreements,” the suit reads. “There is no limiting principle: The next Administration might threaten adverse Executive Branch actions against any lawyer or law firm that dares to represent an oil company, or a gun manufacturer, or the Federalist Society or Fox News.”
Multiple law firms that were targeted by the Trump administration have sued over the orders, resulting in injunctions from federal judges that sometimes lambasted the administration. In one ruling that blocked the government from targeting Perkins Coie, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said Mr. Trump’s order sent the message that “lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.”
Several other firms have cut deals with the administration, promising to carry out mutually agreed-upon pro bono work. These deals are controversial within the legal community — and within the firms themselves — with opponents arguing the firms are capitulating to the government and may not be trustworthy. Supporters of the deals say the firms were put into an impossible position and risked losing scores of clients and attorneys if they chose to take on the government.
