An association of more than 700 partners at major American law firms filed a brief on Friday in support of firm Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit against the Trump administration. The partners argue that recent executive orders exceed the president’s authority and violate the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the US Constitution.

Law Firm Partners United (LFPU) is a collection of partners at the 200 largest US law firms by revenue. The group was formed on April 6 in response to ongoing litigation between firm Perkins Coie and the Trump administration. Perkins Coie is suing to halt Executive Order 14230 (Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP). The order states that Perkins Coie has worked to judicially overturn and circumvent democratically enacted election laws, and that the firm has racially discriminated against its own attorneys, staff, and applicants; the order aims to investigate and sanction the firm while removing its security clearances and government contracts.

Executive Order 14263 (Addressing Risks From Susman Godfrey) was signed on April 9. The order focuses on “unlawful discrimination” at Susman Godfrey. For example, it references a program where the firm offers financial awards and employment opportunities to “students of color.” Similar to the order against Perkins Coie, it aims to investigate and sanction the firm while reducing its government contracts. This move aligns with the administration’s efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across public and private sectors. This past month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued letters to 20 prominent “Big Law” firms, expressing concerns that their DEI programs may run afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws.

In Friday’s amicus curiae brief LFPU argues that Executive Order 14263 intrudes on core judicial functions and threatens the rule of law. The law partners state that Susman Godfrey is being unfairly punished for its “zealous advocacy” and this persecution violates First Amendment guarantees:

Those include the bar on retaliation for protected speech, the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination, and the right to petition government. By putting law firms’ speech in the crosshairs, the executive orders have chilled the ability of lawyers and their clients to exercise their First Amendment right to seek redress through the courts.

The brief also argues that by punishing Susman Godfrey and its clients, the executive order violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Susman Godfrey notes that it is being “falsely accused” of racial discrimination in a separate court filing last week; however, no associated court documents, including Friday’s amicus brief, make any direct claim that DEI initiatives at Susman Godfrey are lawful.

This comes amidst a spate of similar executive orders targeting law firms. Separate orders against WilmerHale and Jenner & Block were both partially blocked by federal courts last month. An order against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison was rescinded after the firm agreed to a number of policy changes, and committed to provide significant pro bono legal services in support of causes such as “assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism.”