*

Trump targeted law firms Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling

*

Perkins Coie represented 2016 Trump rival Hillary Clinton

*

Covington represents Trump cases prosecutor Jack Smith

By Mike Scarcella

WASHINGTON, March 8 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's

executive orders terminating security clearances and taking

other actions against two prominent law firms may violate

constitutional protections and represent exceptional acts of

retribution against lawyers who have crossed him in the past,

according to legal experts.

The two firms targeted by the Republican president have

represented Trump adversaries. Perkins Coie represented the

campaign of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary

Clinton, who Trump defeated in his first presidential run.

Covington currently represents Jack Smith, the special counsel

appointed during Democratic former President Joe Biden's

administration who brought criminal charges against Trump in two

cases.

Legal experts interviewed by Reuters said the manner in

which Trump targeted the firms could run afoul of the U.S.

Constitution's First Amendment protections against government

abridgment of speech and Fifth Amendment guarantee of due

process - a requirement for the government to use a fair legal

process.

Trump on Thursday directed Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director

of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and all U.S. agency

chiefs to restrict access by lawyers at Perkins Coie, a firm

founded in Seattle, to federal buildings and end their security

clearances.

In his separate executive orders concerning the firms, Trump

ordered reviews intended to end contracts they currently hold

with various federal agencies. Trump also initiated a review

intended to end the government contracts of Perkins Coie

clients.

Trump's February 25 executive order targeting Washington,

D.C.-based Covington revoked security clearances for two lawyers

who advised Smith rather than the clearances for all the firm's

attorneys.

Security clearances give individuals access to classified

information. The U.S. government has broad authority to grant

and rescind such clearances and to control federal contracts for

reasons of economic policy, according to legal experts.

To comply with the Constitution's due process mandate, the

order against Perkins Coie would have needed to give the firm

notice and opportunity to challenge the claims, according to

University of Toledo College of Law professor Evan Zoldan.

Trump's order accused Perkins Coie of "dishonest and

dangerous activity." It said Perkins Coie "racially

discriminates" in its hiring - referring to the firm's efforts

toward hiring a diverse workforce in terms of race and other

traits. Trump and his allies have portrayed such policies as

discriminatory against white people. The order also criticized

the firm's work representing Clinton's campaign.

In addition, the order called on government officials to

investigate more "large, influential or industry leading law

firms" over their compliance with laws against racial

discrimination, another reference to diversity policies.

Perkins Coie in a statement said Trump's order is "patently

unlawful, and we intend to challenge it."

"For more than 100 years, Covington has represented clients

facing government investigations, consistent with the best

traditions of the legal profession," Covington said in a

February 25 statement.

"We recently agreed to represent Jack Smith when it became

apparent that he would become a subject of a government

investigation," Covington added.

Smith oversaw two federal cases against Trump - one

involving his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss and the

other involving sensitive government documents he kept after

leaving office in 2021. Trump pleaded not guilty in both.

Neither went to trial.

Trump has called Smith "deranged" and has accused him of

taking part in a politically motivated "witch hunt." Trump faced

criminal charges in two other cases as well. In the only one of

the four criminal cases to go to trial, Trump was convicted in

New York state court last year of 34 felony charges involving

hush money paid to a porn star. Trump has vowed to hold

"accountable" the officials responsible for the criminal cases.

'HARD TO SEE'

University of Colorado Law School professor Maryam Jamshidi

said challenging the termination of security clearances is

legally difficult, but that it is "hard to see what

constitutional authority would authorize" restricting Perkins

Coie's government contracting work.

Zoldan said Trump's allegations against Perkins Coie could

damage the firm in a way that the Supreme Court has ruled

requires "some official proceeding to allow the person impugned

to challenge these accusations."

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said on Friday that

Trump "is fulfilling his commitment to end the weaponization of

government and protect the nation from partisan actors who

exploit their influence."

Federal databases show that Perkins Coie and Covington have

held contracts with various federal agencies and currently

represent companies that contract with federal agencies.

Perkins Coie's federal contracting clients have included

Microsoft ( MSFT ), Northrop Grumman ( NOC ) and Boeing ( BA ),

according to its website, and it advertises that it has security

clearances that allow it to represent companies with sensitive

government business.

Microsoft ( MSFT ) declined to comment. The other companies did not

immediately respond to requests for comment.

'PIECE OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD'

University of Pennsylvania law school professor Claire

Finkelstein said the reliance of lawyers on security clearances

to access information and serve clients can be considered a part

of their practice of law.

"By removing these security clearances, they have removed a

piece of their livelihood, and they've done that without due

process of law," Finkelstein said.

Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley said Trump's

targeting of Covington and Perkins Coie based on clients they

represented raises concerns under the First Amendment's free

speech protections, calling it a potential example of "blatant

viewpoint discrimination."

Legal scholars said that any legal challenge against the

orders could be messy and protracted, especially given their

unusual nature. They said they could not cite other examples of

a U.S. president taking official action against a law firm over

its representation of a client.

Trump "swore up and down that he'd seek 'retribution'

against his political opponents," said UCLA School of Law

professor Jon Michaels, adding that the president's actions show

disregard for the rule of law.

Covington and Perkins Coie are among nearly a dozen major U.S.

law firms representing clients in lawsuits against the Trump

administration, challenging policies related to immigration,

federal spending cuts and other issues.

Government records show that some other firms involved in

the lawsuits also have been federal contractors, such as Arnold

& Porter, Cleary Gottlieb and WilmerHale. Arnold & Porter

declined to comment and the other two firms did not immediately

respond to requests for comment.

Groups advocating for the interest of lawyers said this week

that Trump's actions could deter law firms from taking clients

whose interests conflict with his.

American Bar Association President William Bay said in a

statement that clients have a right to access lawyers without

government interference.

"The government has decided to punish two prominent law

firms because they represent parties that the administration

does not like," Bay said.