President Donald Trump has signed several executive orders aimed at high-profile law firms such as Covington & Burling and WilmerHale.
These orders have sparked a wave of controversy and legal battles.
Some firms have complied with Trump’s demands, while others have challenged the administration in court.
Several of these executive orders have been ruled unconstitutional by federal judges.
The Background of Trump’s Actions Against Big Law
In recent months, President Trump has focused his attention on Big Law firms, accusing them of weaponizing the judicial system against him.
Law firms named include Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, and others.
His executive orders have restricted these firms’ operations by ordering reviews of government contracts, canceling security clearances for some employees, and blocking access to federal buildings.
Some firms have sued the administration, arguing that the orders chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with them.
Other firms chose to cooperate with the administration to avoid penalties, but this has led to internal dissent and criticism from industry peers.
Paul Weiss and Its Response
On March 14, Trump issued an executive order against Paul Weiss, targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the firm’s former attorney Mark Pomerantz.
Pomerantz had assisted the Manhattan District Attorney’s office investigating Trump’s finances and publicly accused Trump of felony violations.
Trump’s order sought to revoke security clearances and block access to federal buildings for Paul Weiss attorneys.
Days later, Trump rescinded the order after reaching a deal with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp.
The firm agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono work for administration-supported causes and to end its DEI policies.
This deal faced criticism internally and from the legal community.
In May, four prominent Paul Weiss partners announced their departure to start a new firm.
Perkins Coie Challenges Trump’s Orders in Court
On March 6, Trump targeted Perkins Coie, suspending security clearances and criticizing its diversity policies.
The firm was singled out for representing Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
Perkins Coie responded by suing the administration, arguing the executive order violated constitutional rights including free speech and due process.
A federal judge temporarily blocked part of Trump’s order, and in May, the order was declared unconstitutional.
Perkins Coie praised the ruling as a victory for constitutional freedoms.
Covington & Burling Faces Executive Scrutiny
Trump issued a memorandum on February 25 targeting Covington & Burling, suspending clearances and reviewing contracts.
The memo focused on lawyers who advised former special counsel Jack Smith, who brought federal cases against Trump.
Covington stated it represented Smith in an individual capacity and has not publicly challenged the administration.
Skadden’s Preemptive Deal with the Administration
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom reached a deal with Trump before being targeted.
The firm committed to $100 million in pro bono legal work supporting the administration and agreed to merit-based hiring practices.
Some employees resigned publicly, expressing discontent with the firm’s decision to cooperate.
Elias Law Group’s Firm Opposition
Elias Law Group was named in a Trump memo accusing it of involvement in a false dossier related to the 2016 election.
The firm’s chair, Marc Elias, strongly criticized the administration’s actions, stating they target lawyers who challenge Trump’s assaults on the rule of law.
Elias vowed the firm would continue fighting for democracy in court.
Jenner & Block Fights Back in Court
On March 25, Trump revoked security clearances and reviewed contracts at Jenner & Block, singling out former attorney Andrew Weissmann.
Jenner called the executive order unconstitutional and filed a lawsuit with legal representation from Cooley LLP.
A judge issued a temporary restraining order against the administration’s actions, later striking down the executive order entirely in May.
Jenner expressed commitment to continue defending their clients vigorously.
WilmerHale’s Legal Victory
WilmerHale, known for lawyers who investigated Trump’s 2016 campaign, was targeted with an executive order suspending security clearances and revoking contracts.
The firm hired Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer, to sue the administration.
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order and later permanently blocked the executive order, declaring it unconstitutional.
WilmerHale praised the court’s ruling as a defense of constitutional rights and the rule of law.
Milbank’s Agreement with the Trump Administration
Milbank proactively reached a deal with Trump without facing executive action.
The firm agreed to end DEI hiring practices and perform $100 million in pro bono legal services supporting causes like veterans and combating antisemitism.
Milbank also committed to representing a full political spectrum of clients.
Conclusion
President Trump’s executive orders against major law firms have triggered widespread legal and political battles.
While some firms agreed to work with the administration, others have taken their fight to the courts, where many of the orders have been ruled unconstitutional.
The ongoing legal disputes highlight tensions between government power, constitutional rights, and the role of the legal profession in political conflicts.