A federal appeals court on Thursday appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s efforts to punish major law firms, showing little appetite to depart from findings by lower-court judges last year that penalties targeting the firms were unlawful.
Months after taking office, Mr. Trump signed a series of executive orders imposing penalties against major law firms that had previously employed or done legal work for president’s political opposition. The orders canceled their federal contracts, revoked lawyers’ security clearances and barred the firms’ staff from entering federal buildings.
A few firms cut deals with the administration, agreeing to do free legal work toward the president’s goals, in exchange for relief from the penalties. But several firms, including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey and Jenner & Block balked and sued.
The hearing in front of three federal appeals judges highlighted the lengths to which the Trump administration has gone to extract concessions from the firms. It came after the Justice Department first told the appeals court that it would abandon efforts to appeal, as the president pivoted his attention to other partisan vendettas and political prosecutions, before reversing course.
At the hearing, the four firms, as well as Mark Zaid, a lawyer who had represented a whistle-blower in connection with Mr. Trump’s first impeachment, each revisited their claims that the administration’s actions had violated their constitutional rights.
“These executive orders run afoul of the better part of the Bill of Rights,” Paul D. Clement, a veteran appellate lawyer and former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, representing the firms told the judges.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
