A federal judge denied a motion to dismiss by the federal government in American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President. Filed in the District of Columbia in June 2025 as a response to a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that targeted several major law firms, the American Bar Association’s (ABA) suit accuses President Trump of committing numerous First Amendment violations against some of the biggest players in the legal profession. It alleges that President Trump’s orders exceeded the powers of the presidency and violated the separation of powers.
The government's motion for dismissal argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because there was no realistic threat and thus no fear of real injury or a ripe controversy under Article III. U.S. District Court Judge Amir H. Ali disagreed, noting in his order that the ABA’s claims “easily surpass” Article III standing requirements to continue.
This Is Why You Pay Dues, Right?
Founded in 1878, the ABA’s motto is “Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice.” As a leader in legal profession advocacy, the ABA oversees law school accreditation through its Standards and Rules of Procedure. It often serves as the final voice of ethical conduct for attorneys and stands in defense of the rule of law. As such, it felt the need to stand up for the legal community after President Trump’s attacks began soon after he entered office.
In 2025, President Trump issued five executive orders targeting law firms over several weeks. The ABA lawsuit alleges that these were part of a calculated campaign that targeted firms that had drawn his ire due to:
- Diversity hiring programs
- Political and social stances, including donations
- Case choice selection, including those involving election integrity, LGBTQ+ issues, and women’s issues
- Representing clients with cases that opposed administration policies
The orders were virtually identical, each containing four sanctions aimed at specific BigLaw firms. In what President Trump and other White House staffers referred to as a crackdown against “crooked law firms” that were guilty of “the weaponization of government or lawfare,” the orders did the following to the firms and their employees:
- Removed necessary government security clearances
- Terminated contracts with the firms and ordered those contracting with the firms to cease working with them, or also risk termination of government contracts
- Denied access to federal buildings, including those containing federal courts
- Blocked the hiring of employees from the sanctioned firms unless they signed a loyalty waiver
The executive orders began on March 6, 2025, with the final one in the sequence issued on April 9. While they targeted certain firms (Perkins Coie [14230]; Paul Weiss [14327]; Jenner & Block [14246]; WilmerHale [14250]; and Susman Godfrey [14263]), the ABA’s complaint alleges that the orders were intended to intimidate all law firms and invoke a chilling effect on offering legal services for civil rights claims or opposing federal agencies.
Several of the country’s most prominent law firms acquiesced to the Trump administration's orders. These included Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Those who reached an agreement with the White House removed diversity initiatives from their hiring practices, offered thousands of hours of pro bono work to causes chosen by the administration, and steered clear of representing non-profit plaintiffs in cases opposing the government.
Each of the executive orders was struck down in federal court in 2025. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has appealed the decisions.
Threats Can Indeed Linger
An amicus brief from former officers of the Washington, D.C. Bar Association classified President Trump’s executive orders as part of an “unconstitutional campaign to undermine the American legal system.”
Judge Ali might agree, as he sided with the ABA’s claim that the orders set a real and immediate threat of sanctions on its members for protected First Amendment activities. In addition, he noted that White House statements mentioning “15 or more” law firms the administration was considering targeting outlined a broader policy that included explicit ongoing threats of retribution.
The memorandum examined and discarded each of the motion’s claims for dismissal. Judge Ali considered the administration’s classification of the ABA’s concerns as “labels and conclusions” to be “not a serious account of the complaint.” Claims that President Trump had stopped issuing orders against law firms and had abandoned their stance also failed to land, with Judge Ali observing that the possibility of continuation remained and that the government had issued four of the orders and pressured the firms that capitulated after the March 6th order had already been blocked in court.
The DOJ also argued that the ABA lacked standing to bring suit because it represents lawyers, not law firms. This also failed to sway Judge Ali, who remarked that attorneys can suffer injury if their law firms are compelled to behave in certain ways.
Related Resources
- Trump DOJ Tries to Seize Control of State Bar Ethics Investigations (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- We Can Do Better With Diversity, Says BigLaw (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- Judge Rules Trump’s Order Targeting Perkins Coie Is Unconstitutional (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
