More than 500 law firms in the United States gather to support Perkins Coie LLC, one of several legal offices run by President Donald Trump.

In a friend-of-court summary filed Friday, the law firm accused the Trump administration of a “hard punishment” campaign against legal professionals representing the people and causing the president to frown.

“Any controversial representation challenges the current government’s actions (even causing it to be dissatisfied) now brings the risk of devastating revenge,” the brief noted.

“No matter the short-term advantage gained from the exercise of power in this way, the rule of law cannot last long in the atmosphere of fear created by such actions.”

Perkins Coie It is one of at least four major law firms Trump has targeted the executive order. They include Wilmerhall,,,,, Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block.

The executive order includes a wide range of charges, including law firms’ involvement in the “Destroy American Base Principle” and “harmful to key American interests in the United States.”

As a punishment, the executive order attempts to revoke security permits required for high-risk cases involving sensitive information and prevent law firm personnel from entering federal buildings such as courts.

Every law firm targeted represents what Trump says is the reason or person.

In Perkins Coie’s case, the president cited the work of the law firm, representing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who opposed Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, Wilmerhale was selected to hire attorney Robert Mueller, who served as head of the FBI. During Trump’s first term, Mueller was appointed as a special lawyer for the Justice Department, investigating the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election – an investigation Trump opposed.

Friday’s court brief argues that Trump tried to “cow” these law firms and expand smaller companies to “submit.”

It noted that tightening security permits and refusing access to federal buildings “will threaten the survival of any law firm,” let alone scary clients.

Several law firms have negotiated a deal with the Trump administration – or avoiding the sanctions first.

Six days after the executive order against the executive order, Paul Weiss, a New York-based law firm, was the first to surrender.

On social media, the president Announce The company has agreed to provide “$40 million in unpaid legal services to support administration initiatives” during President Trump’s term in exchange for executive orders.

Other companies followed suit. Injuried,,,,, Millbank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher – Three major legal offices – Each has proposed $100 million in “free legal services” to Trump’s preferred cause. Since then, some employees of these companies have resigned from their positions in protest.

But Perkins Coie is one of the legal offices that fight Trump’s execution orders, saying their violation of freedom of speech is unconstitutional and has due process before the law.

Wilmerhale and Jenner & Block also raised their own legal challenges.

In Perkins Coie’s Affair Summary, the more than 500 law firm responds to the arguments on which these challenges are based. They slam the Trump administration’s executive orders to threaten everyone’s right to seek legal protection.

“These orders pose a serious threat to our constitutional system and the rule of law itself,” the summary said. “The judiciary should now take a determination to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases.”

It noted that law firms like Perkins COIE hire lawyers and experts from the political field.

It is worth noting that this is short-lived amicus letter In this case, along with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Friday’s petition even cites the fact that the “founding father” of the United States, John Adams, represented unpopular cases—such as defending British colonists who fired American civilians.

It explains that Adams did this because he believed in the right to be equal and just according to the law.

“It is unimaginable that law firms will be able to afford such representation so far from the federal government’s punitive remuneration,” the summary explained.

It calls on the federal court system to enforce a permanent injunction against Trump’s executive order.

“Unless the judiciary acts decisively now, what once surpasses the pale will become a stark reality in a very short time.”