TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin is co-leading a 21-state coalition of attorneys general in filing amicus briefs supporting two law firms challenging executive orders issued under President Donald Trump, which allegedly impose sanctions in retaliation for representing disfavored clients and causes.
Key Points
- Amicus briefs support lawsuits by Jenner & Block and WilmerHale against Trump-era executive orders
- Orders allegedly revoke clearances, restrict access to federal buildings, and pressure contractors to cut ties
- AG Platkin calls the actions unconstitutional and damaging to the rule of law
Coalition pushes back against ‘unconstitutional’ sanctions
The briefs, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, support Jenner & Block LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) in their suits against the U.S. Department of Justice and the Executive Office of the President, respectively.
The lawsuits challenge executive orders that allegedly target the firms’ personnel by suspending security clearances, banning access to federal buildings, and pressuring federal contractors to terminate business relationships.
“Targeting law firms and attorneys for doing their jobs and representing their clients is outrageous, unprecedented, and unconstitutional,” Platkin said in a statement. “It is also deeply damaging to our democracy.”
According to the complaints, the Trump administration issued the orders in retaliation for the law firms’ involvement in cases or representation deemed adversarial to its interests.
The coalition argues the executive orders undermine constitutional protections and the independence of the legal profession. The attorneys general say the measures pose a direct threat to the right to counsel and the ability of attorneys to represent controversial or unpopular clients without fear of reprisal.
Attorney General Platkin added, “President Trump’s unlawful executive orders seek to intimidate lawyers into never crossing him in court or otherwise. But the President and his team will not intimidate us.”
Both law firms previously secured temporary injunctions and are now seeking permanent relief to block the orders from being enforced. The plaintiffs claim the orders are punitive, designed to chill legal advocacy, and violate First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Broader impact on access to justice
The coalition’s brief also highlights potential long-term harm to public access to legal services, especially for vulnerable populations relying on pro bono representation. The attorneys general argue that discouraging firms from accepting high-profile or politically sensitive cases may leave many without adequate legal recourse.
“A fair and functioning judicial system depends on lawyers being willing to work on controversial cases or represent unpopular clients without fearing retribution by the government,” the brief states.
Led by Platkin, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, the coalition includes attorneys general from 17 other states, including California, Maryland, and Minnesota.
