Bipartisan Amicus Brief Challenges Trump’s Executive Orders Against Perkins Coie
In a significant legal move, a bipartisan coalition of former high-ranking officials from national security, foreign policy, and intelligence sectors has filed an amicus brief in response to the executive order issued by former President Donald Trump targeting the law firm Perkins Coie. This filing articulates the consensus among these officials that the president’s actions are beyond his legal authority.
Key Arguments of the Amicus Brief
This brief, submitted by the Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic at Yale Law School in collaboration with Susman Godfrey, highlights two main objections to the executive order:
- It lacks congressional support and oversteps presidential authority.
- It encroaches upon judicial powers, thereby violating the principle of separation of powers.
The Constitution did not make the President a king empowered to punish subjects arbitrarily based on animus or whim. Even setting aside the many constitutional rights violated by his Order, the President possesses no general national security power that empowers him to sanction U.S. citizens simply because they disagree with him. Nor does any Supreme Court decision or historical practice authorize the President to unilaterally issue punitive bills of attainder targeting American citizens against whom he holds discriminatory animus. If national security considerations can justify this Order, then national security could be invoked to justify any arbitrary executive act.
Concerns Over Precedent and Governance
The brief further conveys the alarm among these former officials regarding the implications of such executive actions. They argue that recent developments signify a concerning shift in governance:
When amici served in the United States government, executive orders of this nature would have been viewed as unthinkable violations of their constitutional oath. Yet the repeated issuance in recent weeks of punitive executive orders against specific lawyers and law firms, with perhaps more to come, makes clear that this Administration will continue to levy such sanctions unless enjoined by the courts.
This sentiment underscores a bipartisan concern that allowing these orders to stand could undermine the executive branch’s credibility and hinder its capacity to invoke legitimate national security claims in future matters.
Next Steps and Implications
The amicus brief raises critical questions about the balance of power among the branches of government and the respect for constitutional rights. The legal landscape surrounding executive orders and their limitations could be significantly affected depending on the judiciary’s handling of this case.
To explore the full details of the brief and the supporting signatories, access the complete document below.
Kathryn Rubino, a Senior Editor at Above the Law, actively covers legal news. Reach out to her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or via email for tips and questions.
