Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms: Deals, Suits, and Appeal

Beginning in February 2025, President Trump signed a series of executive orders targeting major American law firms, stripping security clearances from their lawyers, canceling government contracts, and barring attorneys from federal buildings because of clients they had represented, lawyers they had employed, or political causes they had supported. Four firms sued and won rulings declaring the orders unconstitutional; nine others avoided sanctions by agreeing to provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services for administration-favored causes and to change their hiring and client-selection policies. The consolidated appeals are now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which heard oral argument in May 2026 and has not yet ruled.

What the Orders Did

The orders followed a common template. Agencies were directed to suspend security clearances for the firm’s employees, stop providing government goods and services to the firm, restrict the firm’s attorneys from entering federal buildings, review and terminate any existing federal contracts held by the firm or its clients, and refrain from hiring the firm’s employees.¹

The campaign opened on February 25, 2025, with a presidential memorandum targeting Covington & Burling LLP, which represented former special counsel Jack Smith in his personal capacity. It directed agencies to suspend clearances for attorneys who assisted Smith’s team and to review any contracts with the firm. White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf said the action was meant to hold accountable those “responsible for the weaponization of government.” Covington responded that there was no evidence it had played any role in Smith’s investigations of Trump and that it was not a government contractor.²

The first full executive order, Executive Order 14230, followed on March 6, 2025, against Perkins Coie LLP. It accused the firm of “dishonest and dangerous activity,” citing its work hiring Fusion GPS for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, its representation of election-law clients challenging voting restrictions, and its diversity hiring practices.¹

The Firms Targeted

Four more firms drew orders in rapid succession, each tied to a former lawyer or a client the administration viewed as an adversary:

Paul Weiss (March 14, 2025), over former partner Mark Pomerantz, who had worked on the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation of Trump.
Jenner & Block (March 25, 2025), over its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a former member of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.³
WilmerHale (March 27, 2025), over its ties to Mueller himself, who was a partner there before his appointment as special counsel.³
Susman Godfrey (April 9, 2025), over its client representations, charitable donations, and public support for diversity initiatives.⁴

The Firms That Made Deals

Paul Weiss cut the first deal. On March 20, 2025, firm chair Brad Karp reached an agreement under which the president revoked the order against the firm. In exchange, Paul Weiss acknowledged the “wrongdoing” of Pomerantz, pledged $40 million in pro bono services during the presidential term for causes including veterans’ assistance and combating antisemitism, adopted a “policy of political neutrality” in client selection and attorney hiring, and replaced its diversity programs with what it called merit-based practices.⁵

The deal set off a wave of departures. At least ten litigation partners resigned in the months that followed, including Karen Dunn and Jeannie Rhee, who left to start their own firm, and former federal prosecutor Damian Williams, who moved to Jenner & Block. Jeh Johnson, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, retired from the firm.⁶

Eight more firms followed, and their pro bono pledges together approached $1 billion:

The deals generally required firms to end diversity programs, adopt politically neutral client-selection policies, and direct pro bono commitments toward causes aligned with administration priorities. President Trump announced several of the agreements on Truth Social.⁸

Congressional Scrutiny of the Deals

On April 24, 2025, fifteen House Democrats led by Representatives Dave Min and April McClain Delaney sent letters to all nine dealmaking firms arguing that the agreements could violate federal bribery, extortion, and anti-fraud statutes, including the Hobbs Act’s prohibition on extortion under color of official right, honest-services fraud laws, and RICO provisions. The letters also cited a New York state law prohibiting benefits over $5,000 to public servants in exchange for official action, and argued the agreements were unenforceable under the contract-law doctrine of duress.¹⁰¹¹

The Firms That Sued and Won

Four firms refused to negotiate. Perkins Coie sued first, on March 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed on March 28, and Susman Godfrey followed on April 15. All four obtained temporary restraining orders freezing key provisions while the cases moved forward.¹²¹³

The district court rulings that followed were sweeping:

On May 2, 2025, Judge Beryl Howell granted summary judgment for Perkins Coie, declaring Executive Order 14230 unconstitutional and permanently enjoining its enforcement. She found violations of the First Amendment, procedural due process, equal protection, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, and wrote that no American president had ever before “issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm.”¹⁴
On May 23, 2025, Judge John D. Bates declared the Jenner & Block order “null and void,” calling it “an unconstitutional act of retaliation” and finding no legitimate national security justification for stripping the firm’s employees of clearances.¹⁵
On May 27, 2025, Judge Richard J. Leon ruled the WilmerHale order unconstitutional, describing the administration’s actions as an assault on “the cornerstone of the American system of justice.”¹⁵
On June 27, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan permanently enjoined the Susman Godfrey order, holding that the government cannot use its roles as sovereign, contractor, or employer to “immunize retaliatory intent.”⁴

The ABA’s Broader Challenge

Those rulings protected the four plaintiffs but not the wider profession. On June 16, 2025, the American Bar Association sued the Executive Office of the President and more than two dozen federal departments in the D.C. federal district court, seeking a declaration that the entire policy was unconstitutional and an injunction barring its enforcement against any firm or attorney.¹⁶ On March 31, 2026, Judge Amir H. Ali denied the government’s motion to dismiss, finding the ABA had standing to challenge the coordinated executive actions with “materially identical” sanctions.¹⁷

The Appeal at the D.C. Circuit

The administration appealed all four district court rulings, and on February 6, 2026, the D.C. Circuit consolidated the appeals. On the evening of March 2, 2026, the Justice Department filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeals. By the next morning, it reversed itself, filing a motion to withdraw that dismissal and arguing it had the “prerogative” to continue the fight. The firms opposed the reversal, but the D.C. Circuit allowed the appeals to proceed.¹⁸¹⁹

Oral argument was held May 14, 2026, before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Cornelia Pillard and Neomi Rao. Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli argued that presidential revocations of security clearances were unreviewable political questions, and that the remedy for any abuse was impeachment or legislation rather than judicial intervention. Judge Pillard asked whether that theory would allow a president to deny clearances based on a lawyer’s representation of Catholics, Asian Americans, or African Americans; Judge Srinivasan asked whether a president could deny a clearance based solely on race. Paul Clement, arguing for the firms, said the orders “strike at the heart of the First Amendment.”²⁰ The ABA filed an amicus brief on April 2, 2026, supporting the firms.²¹

Where Things Stand

As of mid-2026, the D.C. Circuit has not ruled. The four permanent injunctions remain in force, so the orders cannot be enforced against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, or Susman Godfrey while the appeal is pending. The ABA’s broader case is moving forward in district court after surviving the motion to dismiss.¹⁷

The nine firms that struck deals remain bound by their pro bono commitments, and congressional Democrats continue to press questions about the arrangements. The firms that chose to litigate have reported year-over-year increases in profits per partner, while Paul Weiss has continued to lose senior lawyers.²²⁶

1
The White House. Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP
2
ABC News. Trump Signs Executive Action Targeting Law Firm Representing Jack Smith
3
Bloomberg Law. Trump’s Battle With Big Law Firms Heads Into 2026
4
Bloomberg Law. Susman Godfrey’s Executive Order Struck Down by Federal Judge
5
The White House. Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss
6
Politico. Paul Weiss Brad Karp Trump Fallout
7
CNN. Willkie Farr Gallagher Trump Law Firm Deal
8
The New York Times. Trump Law Firms Kirkland Ellis Latham Watkins
9
Free Speech for People. Free Speech for People Files Ethics Complaint Against Law Firms Skadden and Kirkland
10
ABA Journal. Did 9 Law Firms Making Deals With Trump Violate Bribery, Anti-Fraud Laws
11
U.S. House of Representatives. Letters to Law Firms on Trump Administration Agreements
12
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Law Firms v. Trump Administration
13
Just Security. Tracker: Litigation Legal Challenges Trump Administration
14
American Bar Association. Big Law Target of Trump Executive Orders
15
Demand Justice. Judges Strike Down Trump’s Unprecedented and Unconstitutional Power Grab Against Law Firms
16
American Bar Association. ABA Files Suit to Halt Government Intimidation
17
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President
18
NBC News. Trump Administration Reverses Course, Seeks to Continue Battle With Law Firms
19
Jurist. DOJ Reverses Decision to Voluntarily Withdraw Appeal in Law Firms Case
20
Roll Call. Appeals Court Questions Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms
21
American Bar Association. ABA Amicus Brief on Law Firms Executive Orders
22
Bloomberg Law. Big Law Firms Who Surrendered to Trump’s Demands Ended Up Losing