Fifty-nine law students from eight different Texas law schools are among the 1,224 law students who filed an amicus brief supporting Susman Godfrey and three other law firms fighting executive orders issued last spring by President Donald Trump declaring the law firms to be threats to national security.
The law students’ brief is one of more than a half-dozen filed this week in the litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit between the Trump administration and the four law firms, which also include Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner Block.
The signatories of three other briefs filed Thursday — all supporting the position of the law firms — include 14 former presidents of the Energy Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the European Bar Association.
President Trump’s executive orders claim the law firms pose a national security risk and ban their lawyers from entering federal buildings or prohibit the firms from representing clients that have federal government contracts.
The brief for the past presidents of the Energy Bar Association, which has more than 1,500 members representing the oil, gas, power and alternative energy sectors, argues that the president’s executive orders “pose a concrete and severe threat to the energy industry.”
“The executive orders represent an assault on a foundational premise underlying the rule of law — that energy companies, trade associations, public interest organizations, individuals and others dealing with the federal government are entitled to be represented by counsel of their choosing, regardless of whether those attorneys’ (or their firms’) past or present representations have attracted the ire of the executive branch,” according to the brief authored by the firm Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird of Louisville, Kentucky.
“Rulemaking and other proceedings that shape how electricity is generated, priced, and transmitted, adjudications and other proceedings that determine whether gas pipelines and LNG facilities may be built, and enforcement investigations and proceedings that determine whether market manipulation has occurred in physical and financial energy markets are essential to the functioning of the energy industry,” the energy lawyers state. “They require the participation of law firms with the requisite expertise to represent clients across the energy industry.”
The brief filed by the law students argues that President Trump’s executive orders against the four law firms “represent government reprisal against law firms for representations disfavored by those in control of the executive branch.”
“Left alone, the orders will erode the legal profession’s independence and the rule of law that the legal profession serves,” according to the briefs, which were filed by three law firms — Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, Smith LaCien in Chicago and Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger of San Francisco.
“Our society has functioned for centuries on the understanding that lawyers are free and even encouraged to take up disfavored representations, because every person deserves due process and their day in court,” the brief states. “Running contrary to that tradition, the executive orders at issue here represent government reprisal against a law firm for undertaking representations disfavored by those in control of the Executive Branch. The orders represent an unacceptable intrusion on the professional independence of the legal profession. They represent an unacceptable diminishment of the ability of clients to secure counsel of their choice.”
The brief is signed by 59 students at law schools in Texas. The schools represented include:
University of Texas — 19 signatories;
University of Houston — 19;
Texas A&M — 10;
Southern Methodist University — 4;
South Texas College of Law — 3
Baylor University — 2
St. Mary’s College of Law — 1; and
University of North Texas — 1.
In its brief, the American Bar Association argues that the executive orders “punish the firms for the viewpoints they advocate” and thus violate the First Amendment.
“The President, lacking authority to sanction lawyers generally, has no power to use his control of the executive branch to punish the firms and their lawyers for judicial advocacy,” the ABA brief states. “There is thus no compelling state interest advanced by the EOs, which are not narrowly tailored in any event. Regardless, the EOs reflect an attempt to suppress speech and cannot be sustained. Second, the EOs unconstitutionally retaliate against the firms for exercising First Amendment rights.”
“The EOs have chilled law firm advocacy against the administration and undermine the ability of disfavored groups to retain counsel of their choice,” according to the ABA.
The individual law student signatories are:
Bonnie Worstell — Baylor Law School
Kenadie Wilde — Baylor Law School
Ashley Fortner — South Texas College of Law Houston
Clayton Rainey — South Texas College of Law Houston
Rene Schwartz — South Texas College of Law Houston
Emily McAnally — Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Grace Nobles — Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Izabella Gutierrez Salinas — Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Katie McNamara — Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Lauren Porfirio — St. Mary’s University School of Law
Audrey Moore — Texas A&M University School of Law
Brooklynn Petty — Texas A&M University School of Law
Evan Schoop — Texas A&M University School of Law
Ian C. Stephens — Texas A&M University School of Law
J.C. Freeman — Texas A&M University School of Law
Simon Lee — Texas A&M University School of Law
Sydney Nwuli — Texas A&M University School of Law
Whitney Taylor — Texas A&M University School of Law
Areesha Hemani — Texas Tech University School of Law
Louis Andres Reyes — Texas Tech University School of Law
Abigail Mathew — University of Houston Law Center
Alexis Roberts — University of Houston Law Center
Alicia Davila — University of Houston Law Center
Alyssa Galvan — University of Houston Law Center
Anne Marie Therese Eamiguel — University of Houston Law Center
Anthony Lane — University of Houston Law Center
Cailley Vaughan — University of Houston Law Center
Caitlyn Foret — University of Houston Law Center
Duncan S. Reedyk — University of Houston Law Center
Emily Pickerign — University of Houston Law Center
Gunnar Osteen — University of Houston Law Center
Jake McCreless — University of Houston Law Center
Katherine Brooks — University of Houston Law Center
Landon Adams — University of Houston Law Center
Mason Dowless — University of Houston Law Center
Mauro Vásquez IV — University of Houston Law Center
Natalie Cha — University of Houston Law Center
Paige Chovanec — University of Houston Law Center
Tralessia Myers — University of Houston Law Center
Hamilton Hayers — University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law
Alexander Fisher — University of Texas School of Law
Ali Hamza — University of Texas School of Law
Anna Faubus — University of Texas School of Law
Blaine Campbell — University of Texas School of Law
Brennan Caruthers — University of Texas School of Law
Cate Byrne — University of Texas School of Law
Chad Youmans — University of Texas School of Law
Christopher Jordan — University of Texas School of Law
Emma Hoffman — University of Texas School of Law
Henry Zimmer — University of Texas School of Law
Jack O’Neil — University of Texas School of Law
Jack Reboul — University of Texas School of Law
Joseph Kudler — University of Texas School of Law
Madeline Love — University of Texas School of Law
Meera Sam — University of Texas School of Law
Maxwell Wilder Martucci — University of Texas School of Law
Nickoli Benkert — University of Texas School of Law
Sri Senthilkumar — University of Texas School of Law
Will Bonds — University of Texas School of Law