The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling that invalidated President Trump’s executive orders targeting four major law firms.
The move marks an about-face for the government. On Monday, the Justice Department told a D.C.-based appellate court on Monday it intended to voluntarily drop its appeals of lower court rulings that found Mr. Trump’s executive orders unconstitutional. But a day later, the department told the court it was withdrawing that motion so that it could appeal the rulings after all. The department has not explained its sudden change of course.
“Courts cannot tell the President what to say. Courts cannot tell the President what not to say,” the government’s lawyers wrote Friday. “They cannot tell the President how to handle national security clearances. And they cannot interfere with Presidential directives instructing agencies to investigate racial discrimination that violates federal civil rights laws.”
The lower court rulings stemmed from executive orders Mr. Trump issued last year that sought to punish four law firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey — because of lawyers they hired and cases they worked on.
Some of the firms were specifically criticized for hiring attorneys who have tangled with Mr. Trump in the past, including people who worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The orders also alleged that the firms’ diversity programs were a form of racial discrimination.
The measures all attempted to impose the same sanctions, ordering government contractors to disclose if they’ve hired the firms, restricted the firms’ access to federal buildings and officials, and suspended security clearances held by their employees.
Judges struck down the four orders in often-scathing rulings, describing one as “cringe-worthy” and another as a “screed.” The firms had argued the orders unconstitutionally punished them for diverging with the administration and for upholding their clients’ right to legal counsel.
In Friday’s appeal, the Justice Department argues the four orders were “well within the Presidential prerogative.” The government asserts that decisions on security clearances are up to the president, and federal agencies are allowed to review companies’ employment practices.
“The district courts below bent over backwards to facially invalidate every section of four Executive Orders without considering their plainly constitutional aspects and applications,” the Justice Department said in its filing Friday. “This appeal of those sweeping decisions is not about the sanctity of the American law firm; it is about lower courts encroaching on the constitutional power of the President.”
An order against a fifth law firm. Paul Weiss, was voluntarily rescinded by the White House after Paul Weiss pledged $40 million worth of pro bono legal services on causes backed by the Trump administration, among other concessions. Some other firms preemptively struck similar deals.
A WilmerHale spokesperson told CBS News in response to the appeal: “The executive orders that unlawfully targeted the independent bar have already been blocked by four different federal district court judges. We disagree with the government’s decision to appeal this judicial consensus, and we will proudly continue to defend our clients and our firm.”
Some of the other firms have criticized the Trump administration for changing course and reviving its appeal after indicating it would drop the issue. Perkins Coie said earlier this week the government had “offered no explanation to either the parties or the court for its reversal.”
Susman Godfrey said in a statement to CBS News on Tuesday: “Yesterday evening, the Administration told the Court that it gave up and wouldn’t even try to defend its unconstitutional executive orders. Today, it reversed course.”
“Regardless, Susman Godfrey will defend itself and the rule of law — without equivocation,” the firm said.
