1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed…

Law Firms

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 8:52 am CDT

Amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie are piling up in its challenge to a punitive order against the law firm signed by President Donald Trump.

The briefs have been filed by more than 500 firms, more than 360 law professors, nearly 350 former judges and a “cross-ideological group” that includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest firm, report Law.com (here and here); Bloomberg Law; Reuters (here and here); Law360; and press releases by Law Forward, a nonprofit organization, and the ACLU.

The firm brief is mostly signed by smaller and midsize firms. According to Law.com, larger and well-known firms that signed are:

  • Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer

  • Covington & Burling

  • Crowell & Moring

  • Davis Wright Tremaine

  • Fenwick & West

  • Foley Hoag

  • Freshfields US

  • Hanson Bridgett

  • Jenner & Block

  • Manatt, Phelps & Phillips

  • Munger, Tolles & Olson

  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler

  • Stoel Rives

  • Susman Godfrey

  • Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Perkins Coie sued after Trump issued an executive order that suspended Perkins Coie’s security clearance, limited access to federal buildings by its lawyers, blocked government hiring of firm employees, and required federal agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with the firms and their clients—if the firm provided services in connection with the client contract.

WilmerHale and Jenner & Block also sued after they were targeted with executive orders. Covington & Burling was also targeted in a more limited executive order; it has not filed suit.

As of April 3, four other firms reached deals with Trump to avoid punitive measures. The deals included pledges of pro bono support on issues supported by Trump and the firms.

A Perkins Coie spokesperson told Reuters that the firm was grateful to the firms that signed the amicus brief “in our challenge to the unconstitutional executive order and the threat it poses to the rule of law.”

Above the Law is compiling firms’ reactions to actions by the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.” Law.com has published a timeline of the executive orders and firms’ response to them.

The legal advocacy groups that signed the ACLU brief are:

  • The ACLU

  • The ACLU of the District of Columbia

  • The Cato Institute

  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation

  • The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

  • The Institute for Justice

  • The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University

  • The National Coalition Against Censorship

  • The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press

  • The Rutherford Institute

  • The Society for the Rule of Law Institute

Judges who signed an amicus brief include retired state supreme court and appellate justices and former federal judges. Among them are:

  • Retired Judge J. Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia

  • Retired Judge Diana Gribbon Motz of the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia

  • Retired Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  • Retired Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie of the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia

  • Retired U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York

Law professors who signed the professor brief are from law schools that include Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, the University of California, the Georgetown University Law Center, the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Cornell Law School, the New York University School of Law, the University of Chicago Law School, Columbia Law School and the University of Michigan Law School.

Professors who signed the brief include Michael C. Dorf of Cornell Law School, Mark A. Lemley of Stanford Law School, Owen Fiss of Yale Law School, Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School, Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Editor’s Note: When a parent is in hospice, there may be wishes to voice things that have been unsaid and for your loved one to somehow return to at least a bit of their old selves, for conversations if nothing else. Dan Caldwell, a 76-year-old retired political science professor who died in January, gave his family that gift during the recent Southern California wildfires. His daughter Beth Caldwell, a Southwestern Law School professor, shared their story with the ABA Journal.

My father, Dan Caldwell, a distinguished professor emeritus at Pepperdine University, was diagnosed with an incurable form of blood cancer several years ago. We were very close. In fact, my husband; our two children, ages 9 and 11; and I lived with my parents in order to support them with their needs and spend as much quality time together as possible. We knew our time was limited given my dad’s cancer diagnosis; in addition, my mother has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. She is still very sharp and aware but cannot drive and needs some support with cooking meals and remembering daily tasks.

In the week leading up to the fire, my father’s body had started shutting down. He entered hospice care at our home in Pacific Palisades, which was where I had grown up and my parents lived for 46 years. By Tuesday, it seemed clear that his hours were numbered. He gathered me, my mom and my brother and sister around him on his bed, had us hold hands and said a poignant goodbye. He told us the word he wanted us to think of when we think about this experience is “aloha,” which means hello, goodbye and I love you all at once. My mother grew up in Hawaii, so this was a particularly meaningful concept for all of us. His eyes were rolling back in his head, and his breathing was labored. It was clear that the end was near.

And then we looked out of his bedroom window and saw flames in the hills. They were moving quickly down the hillside. My dad always told us that if you can see flames, a fire was dangerously close and you had to get out. But at the same time, in all of the 46 years we had lived in the Palisades, a fire had never come down the hill and into the town itself. We lived in a residential neighborhood, not in the hills, and evacuated in an abundance of caution a handful of times in our lives. But we didn’t think a fire could really reach our home.

We didn’t know if we could move my dad, how much pain it would cause him to move or if he would die during a car ride. We didn’t think we could really leave. Then the planes that my dad told us Canada generously lends to fight fires in the United States started flying very low right over our house picking up water from the ocean, dumping it on the fire and circling back again. My father was aware enough to express his chagrin at the anti-immigrant sentiment so many Americans seem to have, in contrast to the generosity of Canada sending its planes to come to our aid in times of need. He undoubtedly would have felt similarly if he had known about Mexico’s generosity in sending its firefighters to aid a country whose leader has boasted about building a wall to divide us.

Then the kids’ schools called and said they were evacuating. I rushed to pick them up and brought them home. We kept watching the fire, sure that it would be extinguished soon. The wind was blowing toward the ocean, so the fire was moving in the opposite direction. But then the winds changed direction and the fire was headed toward us. We realized we had to leave. We started running around the house frantically grabbing things—some photo albums, a binder of important financial information my dad had prepared to guide us after his death, a few framed photos.

We were still running around grabbing things when my dad somehow appeared downstairs. He had gotten out of bed, gotten dressed, packed his wallet and medication in a bag and walked down the stairs on his own. We didn’t know how—he hadn’t been able to get out of bed without help before. He said, “It’s time to go,” and we left.

We drove about four hours to a family home in San Clemente, California. Somehow, my dad’s awareness kicked in during the ride. He gave my husband directions for shortcuts, informed by nearly 50 years of navigating Los Angeles traffic. He told my kids stories about his childhood and shared information about landmarks we passed. We listened to his favorite songs. He said he couldn’t believe how surreal it was to be close to death, in his bed and then all of a sudden be on a road trip with his grandkids.

When we made it to our home in San Clemente, he wanted to take “one last view” of the ocean, which you can see from the living room. It was his favorite view in the world. When we were on vacation in Hawaii and Costa Rica, he would often say, “This is great, but I would rather be on the deck in San Clemente.” He said goodnight and goodbye to my children, and I tucked him into the bed where he would die the next day.

He was spared the knowledge that his home had burned down. Spared the worry about what we would do without our home. And I am so grateful for that.

Losing our home with all of our possessions pales in comparison to losing my dad. But the things also matter. So many special mementos he had kept for his entire life to pass down to us—letters, photos, memories from our childhoods. Things from our grandparents, from our mother’s childhood. Scrapbooks from our parents’ youths, which, thankfully, we had looked through in the week before the fire because of our father’s impending death. We had spent a lot of time reminiscing and looking through these gems that are now all gone.

In the aftermath, the losses keep hitting us. Sometimes it’s something practical, like we realize we don’t have any socks. Other times it’s more devastating, like the illustrated children’s Bible my parents had read with us and I had just started reading with my son.

The semester had just started, and I shared what happened with my students in an announcement, in which I asked for some patience and empathy if I was slower to respond to emails than I otherwise would be. The outpouring of support from my students touched me profoundly. My father was a professor for more than 40 years, and every day since his death I have received emails from his former students talking about how much he touched their lives. And I’ve found correspondence he shared with his former students about how much they touched his life in return. I can only hope to have that kind of lasting impact—and relationships—with my students.

---

---

Beth Caldwell is a professor of law at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, where she worked as a public defender before becoming a professor. She is the author of Deported Americans: Life After Deportation to Mexico, which was a 2021 finalist for a PEN/John Kenneth Galbraith Award for Nonfiction.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Murder trial delayed for slain law prof’s…

Criminal Justice

Murder trial delayed for slain law prof’s mother-in-law after her lead lawyer resigns

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 18, 2024, 1:21 pm CDT

A Florida woman accused in the July 2014 murder of her son-in-law, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law, won’t be going to trial in Tallahassee, Florida, this week because of the resignation of her lead attorney.

Lawyer Dan Rashbaum resigned Tuesday, the same day that jury selection was to begin in the murder trial of 74-year-old Donna Adelson, report the Tallahassee Democrat (here and here), WTXL and Florida Politics.

The resignation could open up possible new defense for Adelson, according to a lawyer on the defense team who is now her lead lawyer.

Rashbaum represented Donna Adelson and her son, dentist Charlie Adelson, who was convicted in November 2023 for hiring hit men to kill professor Dan Markel. Donna Adelson is accused of being part of the murder plot, allegedly carried out during a custody battle between Markel and Adelson’s daughter, Wendi Adelson. The alleged motive was to allow Wendi Adelson to move with the children from Tallahassee, Florida, to be near her family in Miami.

Charlie Adelson had contended at his trial that he was a victim of an extortion plot carried out by the two men who killed Markel.

Rashbaum cited a potential conflict of interest that arose after Charlie Adelson was subpoenaed to testify in his mother’s trial. On Monday, Charlie Adelson’s appellate team filed a notice advising that he didn’t consent to Rashbaum cross-examining him and no longer consented to Rashbaum representing his mother, according to Robert “Alex” Morris, Donna Adelson’s new lead lawyer.

Donna Adelson told Judge Stephen Everett in Leon County, Florida, that she consented to the joint representation. She was arrested at the Miami International Airport a week after Charlie Adelson’s conviction. She and her husband were buying one-way tickets to Vietnam.

Morris spoke with reporters outside the courthouse in an interview posted by WTXL.

Morris said everyone was aware of a potential conflict, but waivers were in place until Charlie Adelson revoked consent, as he had a right to do. That ended the “game plan, if you will, and necessitated a different one,” he said.

“Ultimately, the, the question is, is whether or not their positions are at odds with one another, and there’s absolutely the potential of that,” Morris said.

Rashbaum’s resignation “opens up pathways to, in exploring different defenses that may not have been previously available,” Morris said.

He also mentioned the possibility of a plea deal. “You never know,” he said.

See also:

Did dentist hire hit men to kill law prof Dan Markel, his ex-brother-in-law? ‘Absolutely no,’ he testifies

Defense blames law prof’s murder on extortion plot; lawyer ex-wife denies family involvement

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Is SCOTUS making it harder to teach constitutional…

Law Professors

Is SCOTUS making it harder to teach constitutional law? Profs ‘depleted’ and taken aback by ‘velocity’ of change

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2024, 3:10 pm CST

The U.S. Supreme Court’s “hard-right supermajority” is using the doctrine of originalism to overturn established precedent, making it difficult for constitutional law professors grappling with rapid change that they think is unprincipled, according to an article in the New York Times.

The New York Times spoke with several constitutional law professors, including professor Rebecca Brown of the University of Southern California.

“While I was working on my syllabus for this course, I literally burst into tears,” she told the New York Times author. “I couldn’t figure out how any of this makes sense. Why do we respect it? Why do we do any of it? I’m feeling very depleted by having to teach it.”

“What feels different at this moment,” said Barry Friedman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, “is the ambition and the velocity, how fast and aggressively it’s happening.”

As an example, the New York Times pointed to the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

According to the New York Times writer, the decision “featured the right-wing justices playing amateur historians, cherry-picking and distorting evidence from decades or centuries ago in order to justify their existing opinions.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of University of California at Berkeley School of Law and an ABA Journal contributor, addressed the same topic in a March 2022 podcast. One of the guests was Jeffrey Abramson, a professor at the University of Texas who was teaching law students and undergraduates.

“I think we’re on the cusp of a disaster. I think we’re seeing almost a virtual collapse of the ability to teach con law as law,” Abramson said.

“I started this semester with Marbury v. Madison, as almost all of us do,” Abramson said. “I traditionally played devil’s advocate with judicial review. I didn’t have to. Before I had gotten 20 sentences out of my mouth, the students were already asking whether judicial review, both historically and today, serves any democratic purpose.”

Abramson also has students read a Franz Kafka story about a man from the country who finds a gatekeeper who won’t allow him to gain entry into the law.

“It’s a long story about whether there is a law inside that the doorkeeper is keeping students from getting into, or whether there is nothing in there, that it’s all a charade, it’s all a magic trick. They’re only doorkeepers and doorkeepers and doorkeepers.”

In the past, students believed in the law and thought that there was a difference between the law and its agents, who could be faithful or corrupt, Abramson said. But now, his students “share this vast cynicism” that there are only gatekeepers, and “there is no such thing as the law.”

Will Baude, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, offers a different perspective at the Volokh Conspiracy, where he cited his presentation at a symposium that he has posted to SSRN.

There is a perception that teaching constitutional law is more difficult because the Supreme Court has been doing so many things so quickly. But the perception is wrong, Baude said.

The Supreme Court “has long been engaging in awe-inspiring power grabs,” he said, citing cases with liberal results on abortion, same-sex marriage, desegregation and the rights of criminal defendants.

“The court has always been making questionable calls in high-profile cases, likely for a mix of political reasons and genuine differences of opinion about the nature of the Constitution,” Baude wrote. “What has really changed is not that the court is newly imperial or newly lawless or newly political. What has changed is that many more folks inside the Ivory Tower have noticed and no longer see their values and ways of thinking represented as often by the court.”