The College of Commercial Arbitrators filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the Trump administration's appeal to revive executive orders that revoked security clearances for four major law firms.[9] The group argued that upholding these orders would "imperil" arbitration in the United States by chilling the arbitration process.[9]
Who's Involved
The Trump administration has targeted multiple law firms through executive orders beginning in February 2025, with each firm having connections to investigations or cases related to Trump or his allies, including Robert Mueller's Russian election interference probe, efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and classified documents cases.[5] Nine major law firms initially visited the White House to negotiate, though four firms are standing firm and fighting the orders in court with temporary restraining orders protecting them.[5] The College of Commercial Arbitrators, a professional organization of arbitrators, has joined the legal battle by urging the D.C. Circuit to reject the administration's appeal.[9]
Context and Timeline
President Trump signed executive orders against law firms beginning in February 2025, with six firms targeted in six weeks.[5] These orders threaten to bar attorneys from courthouses and federal agencies and cancel law firm clients' federal contracts.[5] This follows a broader Trump administration attack on arbitration, including an earlier executive order on March 27, 2025 that purported to revoke the federal government's consent to arbitrate grievances for approximately one million federal employees.[1] The College of Commercial Arbitrators' brief represents growing concern within the arbitration community about the administration's legal strategy.
Why It's Newsworthy
The arbitration group's intervention signals that the legal community views these executive orders as threatening the fundamental integrity of the arbitration process itself, beyond the immediate impact on the targeted law firms.[9] The case represents a broader constitutional conflict over executive power, with law professors arguing the orders violate free speech, due process, and the right to counsel.[5]