“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion,'” Howell wrote.

The case is one of four ongoing legal challenges brought by law firms facing similar penalties under Trump’s executive orders. Other firms involved in litigation include Jenner & Block, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and Susman Godfrey, according to CBS News. The orders sought to suspend the firms’ security clearances, force disclosure of any contracts with government agencies, and limit access to federal buildings and government personnel.

While four firms are pursuing legal action, at least nine others have avoided penalties by striking deals with the administration. These agreements required firms to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono legal services to the federal government. 

One such example cited by Howell involved Paul Weiss, which had its executive order rescinded after agreeing to $40 million in free legal work. Howell argued that the administration’s rescinding of this order “demonstrates the coercive power of such targeting by the Trump administration.”

“If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written,” Howell wrote in a footnote.