Lawyers file amicus brief challenging Trump directives undermining rule of law News
jessica45 / Pixabay
Lawyers file amicus brief challenging Trump directives undermining rule of law

A group of 67 former lawyers of major corporations including Microsoft, Eli Lilly and Intel submitted a brief on Tuesday denouncing US President Donald Trump’s use of executive orders to target big law firms. The brief was filed in support of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP, which sued the Trump administration after being targeted by an executive order.

The lawyers stated that they are submitting the brief in this case because they “can speak to the broader harm this Executive Order inflicts on American businesses.” The lawyers emphasized the “chilling effect” that the upholding of this executive order will have on the future of American businesses, noting potential hesitancy by businesses to challenge executive authority in the future in the hopes of avoiding presidential retaliation.

The brief also emphasized that these executive orders violate the rule of law the US upholds, stating:

The Order does not merely punish a single law firm and its thousands of employees; it erodes the foundation of legal representation by counsel of choice, uses federal contracts to coerce political loyalty, and conscripts private businesses to settle the President’s political scores. Its message is clear: hire the wrong lawyers, or take the wrong public stance, and your company will be punished.

Trump signed Executive Order No. 14,230 on March 6, 2025, suspending Perkins Coie attorneys’ ability to access federal buildings and officials and threatening to cancel some of the firm’s government contracts. The president cited the firm’s “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies and its “dishonest and dangerous activity,” specifically while representing former Vice President Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The coalition of lawyers is not the only group that has shown their support for Perkins Coie in its lawsuit. On April 8, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a similar brief arguing in support of summary judgement for the firm by stating the executive order is in violation of the US rule of law.