While nine law firms have made deals to avoid President Donald Trump’s orders targeting them, the one that works for Wyoming’s largest federally recognized Indian tribe is continuing to fight the federal government in court.
As of Tuesday, nine firms had settled with Trump and agreed to perform, collectively, nearly $1 billion worth of free work in causes upon which they and the president have “mutually agreed.”
These bargains came after Trump accused multiple high-profile law firms of un-American work and alliances, curbed their access to federal buildings and contracts through a slew of executive orders.
So far, the firms fighting back by suing the president are in the minority at a total of four, says an ongoing chart by lawyer blog Above The Law.
One of those, Jenner & Block, works for the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming.
The Court Fight
Jenner & Block on Wednesday urged a federal judge to dismiss the Trump administration’s arguments that the president’s March 25 executive order is constitutional. The firm asked the court to judge the case early in its favor by blocking Trump’s order altogether.
Just a few of the constitutional provisions Jenner is invoking include: the firm’s right to speak freely without suffering government retaliation, its right to associate with whom it pleases, and its clients’ right to the legal counsel of their choice.
“Perversely, the Order purports to impose these sanctions to advance ‘bedrock American principles’ and the interests of the United States,” says the filing. “The opposite is true: Our system is grounded on the notion that the government may not retaliate against citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate.”
The firm won an initial victory three days after the executive order’s emergence when, on March 28, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates blocked the bulk of the executive order — temporarily — from going into effect.
The blocked portions included sections targeting government contractors that work with Jenner, blocking government agencies from hiring Jenner employees, and limiting Jenner employees’ access to federal buildings.
Bates also told federal agencies not to lean on the order’s Section 1, which essentially calls the firm un-American and accuses it of factoring race into its treatment of its employees.
The tribe’s governing arm in a statement to Cowboy State Daily three weeks ago said the order doesn’t implicate Jenner’s work with the tribe, and it “remains fully satisfied with the firm’s excellent work on our behalf.” The tribe did not comment Friday, referring Cowboy State Daily to Jenner, which also didn’t comment to the outlet.
Jenner has said in court documents that at least one client meeting fell apart after Trump’s order, and that 40% of its revenue is tied to federal contracts. Memoranda circulated in Congress warning staffers against meeting with disfavored law firms.
Pam Bondi’s Office Fires Back
Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson fired back in an April 8 motion to dismiss Jenner’s lawsuit.
Speaking for the Trump administration, Lawson said the executive order’s mission is “to ensure that the Federal Government’s dealings with the firm are consistent with the national security of the United States and other public interests.”
The order also seeks to curb tax money from supporting “unlawful or unsavory practices that — if they should be permitted at all — must be financed by the private dime,” the federal government argued.
The motion warns that Jenner & Block’s court challenge of the order against it carries “a dangerous risk of muzzling the Executive,” which also has the right to speak.
Pointing to the Trump Administration’s claim that Jenner & Block engages in racial discrimination, the filing says the order seeks to divert taxpayer money from such an abuse.
Jenner had countered in its own filing that it didn’t know of an equal protection investigation into its practices ahead of this order, nor was it called to defend itself in such an investigation.
The government’s filing says Trump’s order tells agencies to do what they should be already: dodging contracts with discriminatory entities, and double-checking such an entity’s security clearances.
What Trump’s Order Says
The executive order accuses Jenner & Block of waging partisan “lawfare.”
It tells all federal agencies to cancel contracts for which the firm has been hired to do any service, a move that may impact the Northern Arapaho Tribe, which is based in central Wyoming and relies heavily on government contracts.
Trump’s order calls Jenner’s work with transgender people and illegal aliens “partisan representations to achieve political ends.”
The order attacks the firm for its re-hiring of attorney Andrew Weissman, who was part of Robert Mueller’s 2016 investigation and prosecution of Trump.
It calls for:
• A review of Jenner personnel’s security clearances at government departments.
• Any government goods or property being extended for Jenner’s use to “cease.”
• Government contractors to disclose any business they do with the firm and whether that business is related to a government contract.
• Federal agencies to end contracts with the firm.
• Federal agencies to end contracts with other entities or people on which Jenner has been hired to perform any work.
• Limitations on Jenner personnel access to federal government buildings.
• Agency officials not to hire Jenner employees.
A Vow
One of Jenner & Block’s top attorneys also vowed publicly this week not to back down from what he cast as unconstitutional attacks on the entire advocacy system.
Speaking for himself in an Atlantic column, Jenner firm partner Adam Unikowski voiced doubt about whether the capitulating firms’ clients will want to do business with them once they’ve caved to the federal government’s demands.
He noted that all criminal litigation and a huge amount of civil litigation pit people and their lawyers against the government.
“The theory behind settling is that what clients really want is a law firm that folds in the face of unconstitutional coercion, ostensibly to get into the government’s good graces, rather than a firm that stands up for its right to remain independent from the government,” wrote Unikowski. “Law firms should have more faith in the people they represent than that.”
