>> Some of the nation's largest law firms have recently been faced with a stark choice, cooperate with the Trump administration or face punitive executive orders.

As of Friday, 5 more big law firms gave in to President Trump's demands committing to provide 600 million dollars in pro bono legal work for the administration.

That means President Trump has now secured commitments for almost 1 billion dollars worth of free legal help from the country's most powerful law firms.

Meanwhile, several firms including Chicago based Jenner and block are choosing to oppose the administration's demands.

Joining us now to examine some of the constitutional issues.

This raises or Harold Current longtime former dean constitutional law specialist in now professor of law at Chicago, can't College of Law.

And joining us via Zoom is David Applegate lawyer with Williams, Barbara and Monroe and member of the Libertarian in conservative-leaning Federalist Society.

Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us.

Errol, do want to start with, you to start with you first.

Please is legal to use executive orders to target law firms that have displease.

The president and several courts have already held that this is unconstitutional.

And I think it's clearly unconstitutional.

>> David probably agree should at least on 2 grounds know, first that it's a violation of the First Amendment because impeach free speech speech.

The messages you speak out against administration is going to be retaliation.

Very serious retaliation.

And second of all, it impedes people's abilities to get an attorney.

You know, you're not going to be able to get people to.

Represent you in immigration or other contacts against administration for fear of reprisals.

So on both grounds, I would predict that this would go down before the courts.

And we're really troubles me about this is how brazen news.

It's not the President Trump wasn't trying to hide anything said because you were against me in some other context.

I'm going to punish That's frightening.

And some of those contacts include, you know, hiring people who worked for his up a little more representative of his political opponents among others.

>> I'm David Applegate similar question to you.

What kind of constitutional issues do you think this raises?

>> I think it raises exactly the ones that Carol, this brought in its general.

He's argued its lawsuit.

It also raises equal protection and due process.

Arguments because the essential elements of due process or no to sitting here one might try to argue somewhat cleverly that.

Well, we we issued one of these against a lot from before week issued the executive gets years.

So you are sort of notice because rich doing same things that which we disapprove.

But I don't think any court is going to buy is is chair points out very There's been absolutely no kind of hearing any of the factual issues that are being asserted such as who is employed by whom who took what positions those sorts of things.

so I I have to agree with Harold here that raises serious First Amendment issues.

It raises serious right to counsel issues.

It raises dare.

I say it both substantive and procedural due process issues as well as some equal protection issues.

>> David, what might be the potential impact, you know, on a law firm's bottom line, really on their business if they're shut out of government work and government contracts.

>> So the bottom line could be a quite severe.

It is general points out that there it leaves 2 aspects to this.

One is the ability to represent clients their choice with the clients haven't legal counsel of their choice, which can deprive firms that.

The revenue soars and the second is a rather clever, but somewhat disingenuous argument that the time spent responding to these executive orders is time that cannot be spent the unpaid include.

it's interesting to note that according to Bloomberg at least the the reached agreements with the administration have roughly twice the profits per partner of the firms that have No, that's historical.

The forward-looking.

That's a Sara Lee.

But big law firms are big business with revenues in the billions of dollars in expenses to minutes in the inability to represent clients before the government or suing government because you can't have access to government buildings and were security clearances.

It can make a dramatic difference improve spa number.

>> The president's attack on law firms it's also caused some divisions within the legal profession within the law firms themselves.

Some of those firms, as we've discussed, they've acquiesced to administration's demands.

Others are fighting back.

As David mentioned, the general block argument.

Harrold, what conversations are these firms having when they're weighing the factors and figuring out how to respond?

It's nobody envies the situation of law firms, right?

They have potential be shut out of the government market.

>> Also, I want to add that the president's executive orders also threatens vengeance against anybody who does business with those law firms.

And so it's hard to get Klein's if you're being threatened by the Fed federal government.

So on the one hand and in addition, executive order says that that the members of the law from the lawyers should believe a law firm can't even get federal government to work afterwards.

So for all these pressures on the law firm, on the one hand, on other hand, it's what their and integrity doing.

What you believe.

And there's a price to pay for that as we've been talking about.

So it's not an easy decision.

And obviously law firms are divided to going both ways to twice as many law firms now have have the settlement agreement and then have decided to for have sued.

I think this will come to an end relatively quickly because I think to the will, of course, will be unanimous in saying this goes way beyond the pale and this activity by the president is clearly unconstitutional.

>> Now, as of Friday, Trump is secured almost a billion dollars worth of free legal services, as we mentioned from some of, you know, one of the most powerful law firms in the country.

Does that raise legal concerns?

The the agreements themselves, Carol?

Indian.

>> One way, yes, when we know I mean, most of the agreements for pro Bono, I think we are causes that everybody can agree with helping veterans first responders.

And I think that will be efforts by the law firms to put to good use.

But other hand, the these agreements themselves are process.

Of course.

And there's an imbalance of power.

The federal government opposes law firms.

Even the law firms are sophisticated.

And it's possible that even these agreements may be subject to being overturned in the courts, sort of contract adhesion because it's simply unfair.

>> Similar question to David, because some of the firms, as as Harold mentioned, they have said that yes will agree to doing this pro bono work because their issues, you know, that we share the same interest as the administration is that reason enough to make a deal if you're already doing that work, then just do that work rather than make a deal.

Is that how do you read that?

>> Both your position Brand says obviously it fairly straightforward argument.

you're going to you're going to do it.

But at least one of the settling a Paul Weiss issued statement, get it according to saying what we're doing is entirely consistent with our statement of principle set down over 60 years ago because we are made no maintaining by affirmative efforts the membership of partners reflecting a wide variety of clients with a wide variety of interests.

We don't just take the popular causes on one side or the other, we're doing work know against illegal immigration, a upholding veteran's rights Errol, this pension and even supporting the administration's?

position that there are only 2 that there's one little interesting aspect here that I've not heard discussed that is slightly clever.

But I do think it's gonna make this pass muster is that if you read the executive orders carefully, they say consistent with existing to the extent consistent with the that this executive order Klice is all that And I agree, I think the courts are going to find fairly quickly that that these are not consistent with the law and the Constitution.

>> And to that point, you know, are these agreements even legally binding?

We've got Crain's Chicago Business reporting just this afternoon that Chicago based Kirkland Ellis were Kirkland and Ellis, which did make a deal with the administration that didn't have anything in writing that this agreement was pretty announced on truth.

Social, the president's social media.

If there's nothing in writing.

>> Contracts can be or on the same subject to statute frauds, which has a for a variety exceptions to it.

I think the stronger argument here would be heroes argument of contracts he shouldn't done under coercion, but it but it's a love for generally was to say we value the ability to represent the clients.

We represent detained, the fees that we obtained and the positions that the administration is asking support in a country That's not necessarily coercion in a legal sense, although certainly looks like it on the face of it.

>> What if what if the courts, Harold, should say these deals aren't binding, they're not enforceable and the wrong for various and sundry reasons.

Should we be about the administration actually doing what the court says as he seems to not be dealing with regards to some deportations.

So that's the inflection point.

You know what's going to happen with the series of questions like Salvador with Garcia was being taken.

>> They're against his will administration not wanting to return even though he's been or 2.

What if the administration doesn't follow a court order?

That's when you get the constitutional crisis.

It's simmering now.

I hope it doesn't flare up, but it certainly could, because in this case and the cases of immigration in other contexts, the when the administration doesn't like what the courts say, what are they going to OK?

And that was my next question.

Are we on course for a full blown full-blown constitutional crisis?

We're going to talk about that next