I could understand a 14th amendment equal protection argument. But when applied to areas like race that require "close scrutiny" by the court, the government is usually restrained. However, here in the absence of issues of race etc., it would seem that the "rational basis" review would apply.
The old saw is that you decide these cases backwards by deciding what kind of scrutiny the court will apply. Invariably, when rational basis is applied, the government action is upheld.
Surely, the administration can contrive a legitimate government interest that can be rationally related to these restrictions on the law firm.
But "abuse of power?"
