by
MANDEL
NGAN/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
A
new
amicus
brief
dropped
today
in
the
case
filed
by
Perkins
Coie
challenging
the
Executive
Order
issued
by
Donald
Trump
targeting
the
firm.
While
lots
of
folks
are
getting
into
the
amicus
game
in
this
case,
this
one
has
a
bipartisan
group
of
former
senior
national
security,
foreign
policy,
intelligence,
and
other
public
officials
signing
on
“to
express
their
shared
view
that
the
President’s
unprecedented
executive
orders
against
Perkins
Coie
and
other
law
firms
are
ultra
vires
because
they
are
based
on
no
valid
national
security
concern,
were
issued
without
any
colorable
legal
authority,
and
unconstitutionally
interfere
with
the
separation
of
powers.”
The
brief,
filed
by
the Peter
Gruber
Rule
of
Law
Clinic at
Yale
Law
School
and Susman
Godfrey,
takes
particular
aim
at
“the
President’s
attempt
to
invoke
national
security
to
justify
this
punitive,
retributive,
ad
hominem
Order.”
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.
Left
undisturbed,
this
Order
will
jeopardize
the
executive’s
ability
to
call
for
judicial
deference
in
those
cases
where
national
security
is
genuinely
implicated.
The
brief
goes
on
to
make
two
primary
arguments.
One,
that
the
order
levied
against
Perkins
Coie
(and
other
firms)
isn’t
supported
by
congressional
action
and
the
president
does
not
have
the
inherent
powers
to
issue
it.
And
two,
that
the
order
usurps
power
from
the
judiciary,
violating
the
separation
of
powers.
But
for
my
$.02,
the
best
bit
is
at
the
end
when
these
public
servants
from
both
Republican
and
Democratic
administrations
make
it
clear
just
how
norm-shattering
the
Trump
II
reign
has
become:
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.
Read
the
full
brief,
and
list
of
amici,
below.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].