ICYMI: Judges Strike Down Trump’s Unprecedented and ‘Unconstitutional’ Power Grab against Law Firms
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2025
PRESS CONTACT
Judge Rules in Favor of WilmerHale, Following Other Court Victories Against Trump’s Unconstitutional Executive Orders
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration suffered maybe its most thorough court loss yet last week, as Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm WilmerHale is blatantly unconstitutional. As one of the most blistering rebukes of Trump’s authoritarian overreach, Judge Leon ruled that the order “must be struck down in its entirety” and concluded Trump’s targeting of law firms is an assault on “the cornerstone of the American system of justice.” His ruling laid bare what the administration’s goal is: “If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!”
But even firms who struck deals with Trump are facing unexpected consequences, like the loss of clients or hits to their reputation. New reporting has also shown that allies of President Trump are now looking to take advantage of the firms’ promised free legal services.
Other law firms that fought back against these unlawful executive orders, such as Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey, are also securing major legal victories against Trump’s executive orders. Each one reaffirms a growing consensus that Trump’s weaponization of the presidency against the legal community is not only unprecedented but also blatantly unconstitutional.
Demand Justice’s “Big Law Cowards” campaign highlights Trump’s unconstitutional targeting of law firms, tracking those that have capitulated to his pressure tactics—causing significant harm to the justice system.
See below for additional coverage:
The Wall Street Journal: The Law Firms That Appeased Trump—and Angered Their Clients
- “At least 11 big companies are moving work away from law firms that settled with the administration or are giving—or intend to give—more business to firms that have been targeted but refused to strike deals, according to general counsels at those companies and other people familiar with those decisions.”
- “At Skadden, Simpson, Latham and Kirkland, some associates have quit over the deals. One associate leaving Simpson wrote in his departure email, shared on LinkedIn, that he refused to ‘sleepwalk toward authoritarianism.’ Partners, too, have left some of the firms that made deals.”
The Washington Post: Judge strikes down Trump’s sanctions against Jenner & Block law firm
- U.S. District Judge John D. Bates wrote that Trump’s order targeting Jenner & Block is “an unconstitutional act of retaliation” and noted that lack of national security justification when it stripped security clearances from the firm’s employees.
- Bates said Trump made it clear and definite why he targeted the law firm — because “of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed.”
NBC: Judge strikes down ‘unprecedented’ Trump order targeting Perkins Coie law firm
- U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said that Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie “violates the Constitution and is thus null and void.”
- Judge Howell criticized law firms that capitulated to Trump and suggested agreements may compromise clients’ rights to strong representation—especially since the deals only delay—not eliminate Trump’s threats.
Judges have said that Trump’s attack on the American people’s judicial system “violates the Constitution” and is an effort “to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like.” Meanwhile, other firms, such as Paul Weiss and Skadden, agreed to Trump-aligned pro bono work to avoid retaliation but now face massive fallout and a cascade of high-profile resignations. Trump has reportedly considered demanding even more favorable work from these firms — raising concerns about the independence of the firms that bent the knee.
###
