Trump’s war against US law firms suffers setback

Published at 28 May 2025

Judge rules executive order targeting Jenner & Block unconstitutional with “no plausible legitimate rationale”.

President Trump’s campaign to penalise major law firms over their perceived political affiliations has suffered another legal blow after US District Judge John Bates struck down an executive order aimed at Jenner & Block, marking the latest in a series of judicial rebukes to White House initiatives targeting the legal sector. The ruling, handed down on Friday 23 May in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, declared that the administration had acted unconstitutionally by retaliating against Jenner & Block due to the clients it represents, the causes it supports and its past association with Andrew Weissmann, a former partner who was a senior member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Trump.

VIOLATING THE US CONSTITUTION

Judge Bates, a Republican appointee of former President George W Bush, wrote that the executive order "makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed”. He further criticised the administration’s approach, stating the orders were “doubly violative of the Constitution”, as they infringed upon First Amendment protections and attempted to shield the Executive Branch from judicial scrutiny.

The decision represents a setback to the president’s campaign against Big Law, which had successfully extracted pledges totalling around USD 1 billion in pro bono work from law firms for causes aligned with the administration’s agenda. However, those efforts have repeatedly failed to withstand legal scrutiny. In courtrooms, judges have consistently sided with the firms, affirming the sacrosanct principle that legal representation – even for unpopular clients – must remain independent from executive coercion.

RETRIBUTION

Jenner & Block, a firm with a noble history of public interest litigation and civil rights advocacy, became a key target of the administration because of its progressive affiliations and its former employment of Mr Weissmann. During the hearing, Department of Justice lawyer Richard Lawson defended the executive order, arguing that the president had the authority to direct executive action, particularly in areas concerning national security. However, the judge agreed with the firm’s view that the administration’s actions constituted retribution, tantamount to an unconstitutional attempt to “muzzle” the firm and prevent it from representing clients whose interests may be contrary to the government’s. The judge continued: “This section [of the executive order], which directs an astonishingly broad range of actions against Jenner employees past, current, and future, has no plausible legitimate rationale and thus cannot stand. The order’s retaliatory nature suffices to deem it unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Still, a brief exploration of the order’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment deficiencies is worthwhile and fits nicely here.”

“More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy,” Judge Bates continued, adding: “This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers.”

In addition to naming Weissmann, the original executive order directed federal agencies to suspend Jenner & Block lawyers’ security clearances, restrict their access to federal buildings, and reassess contracts involving the firm’s clients, prompting the judge to opine that there is “no federal hiring ban on Jenner employees that would pass constitutional muster”.

REACTION

In a statement issued following the ruling, Jenner & Block said: “We are pleased with the court's decision to decisively strike down an unconstitutional attack on our clients' right to have zealous, independent counsel and our firm's right to represent our clients fully and without compromise. This is the second ruling striking down these executive orders, which – as the court found – threaten “not only the First Amendment but also the right to counsel’s promise of a conflict-free attorney ‘devoted solely to the interests of his client’.”

The firm’s statement continued: “Our decision to fight the executive order in court is rooted in Jenner & Block's history and values: we fiercely advocate for our clients under all circumstances. This ruling demonstrates the importance of lawyers standing firm on behalf of clients and for the law. That is what Jenner will continue to do for our clients – paying and pro bono – as we look to put this matter behind us.”

The judgement mirrors a similar decision earlier this month by US District Judge Beryl Howell, who permanently blocked a parallel executive order against Perkins Coie, calling it an “unprecedented attack” on legal independence. That ruling, along with this latest judgment, marks a decisive legal repudiation of Trump’s broader strategy. Other firms, including WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, have also mounted successful challenges against related orders, winning temporary restraining measures in federal court. Others, most notably Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, have chosen to back down, prompting a wave of resignations.