Seventeen former presidents of the D.C. Bar and several voluntary bar associations are calling on a federal judge to permit the continuation of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive orders, which target law firms, even though several such firms have reached agreements with the administration.

The interested parties, who are requesting to submit an amicus brief in the case, expressed concern for the legal profession as a whole in response to the Trump administration’s attempts to “muzzle” lawyers through intimidation tactics.

“The deliberate actions by the Trump Administration to penalize and intimidate political opponents of the President significantly impact all attorneys, especially those practicing in the central hub of government,” stated the Thursday submission.

Describing the current period as an “extraordinary time in the history of our democracy,” the filing of an amicus brief poses potential risks from the Trump Administration. Despite this, numerous lawyers and associations like the Hispanic Bar Association of D.C., the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, the National Bar Association, the Trial Lawyers Association, and the Women’s Bar Association of D.C. stressed the necessity of highlighting the broader issue as “imperative.”

“We firmly believe it is crucial for members of the legal community, especially its leaders, to publicly condemn the Administration’s unparalleled and unconstitutional actions aimed at preventing its opponents from accessing legal counsel and to restrict a profession integral to justice,” the submission emphasized.

The filing in support of the ABA from the would-be amici comes as U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Joe Biden appointee who has ruled against the administration before, weighs whether or not to toss the case.

In June, the ABA said Trump’s executive orders amounted to an “unconstitutional” and “unlawful policy of intimidation against lawyers and law firms” as part of the president’s revenge campaign against political rivals.

“[T]he American legal profession faces a challenge that is different from all that has come before,” the complaint said. “It is unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law,” adding that it created a “blizzard-like chill on the profession” that saw firms avoid repercussions by pledging to do legal work for the administration for free.

Most recently, and in opposing dismissal, the ABA said major firms’ capitulations through “settlements” with the administration do not weaken the lawsuit.

“[T]he ABA’s Complaint details a campaign in which the President himself issued virtually identical EOs against five different law firms while threatening to do the same against any other law firm that did not ‘behave,’ as the President warned to a nationwide audience from the Oval Office,” the ABA argued. “And the Complaint establishes that even the most sophisticated and well-resourced law firms in the country took the threat so seriously that they agreed to forgo constitutionally protected expression and to contribute more than $1 billion in pro bono work to avoid being subject to EOs themselves.”

“These allegations are not about coincidences and anecdotes, nor are they the product of overactive imaginations,” the filing continued. “The ABA has pleaded a well-defined and consistent policy that continues to repress constitutional rights.”

But the DOJ has countered that the ABA cannot show that it even has standing to sue, as it is not a law firm itself and claims of a “chilling effect” on others are not enough to demonstrate an injury to the ABA.

“It is well established that allegations of a ‘chilling effect’ on alleged constitutionally-protected activities without more—and the ABA fails to allege more—is not cognizable. And even if these sorts of chilling injuries could support Article III standing, the ABA has grounded those injuries in vague, speculative, broadbrush allegations,” the DOJ said.

The ABA is “shadowboxing without a shadow” and, as a result, has reached a “dead end,” the government said.

“The ABA purports to sue on behalf of law firms, as well as on behalf of non-member lawyers, that might be the subject of EOs in the future but cannot show why those firms or lawyers cannot bring suit on their own,” the DOJ stated.