The ABA sued in federal court to enjoin enforcement of Trump’s Executive Orders punishing prominent law firms that oppose Trump and his policies.
In the ongoing saga of President Trump’s attacks on major law firms that he dislikes, the American Bar Association (ABA) has entered the fray. On June 16, 2025, the ABA filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government for unconstitutional executive orders and attacks and intimidation of the legal profession.
A Look at Trump’s Executive Orders
Trump has issued a series of executive orders suspending government contracts, security clearances, and access to government personnel targeting big law firms. These firms have represented interests and policies that Trump opposes.
The Trump administration’s executive orders had a chilling effect on the legal community and the pro bono services it provides. Some firms chose to negotiate, while other firms sued. Here is a look at some executive orders and their results.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (“Paul Weiss”)
Trump issued Executive Order 14237, “Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss,” which suspended security clearances, stopped providing materials or services, limited government access, and required government contractors to disclose if they do business with the law firm.
The law firm had attorneys involved in investigations and lawsuits against Trump before he was elected to a second term.
Attorney Mark Pomerantz investigated allegations of fraud related to Trump’s real estate assets as part of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Attorney Jeannie Rhee worked on a pro bono lawsuit against participants in the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol building.
As a result of this order, the law firm negotiated a deal where they agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono work for specific causes such as veterans' issues, fairness in the judicial system, and combating anti-Semitism. While these are worthy causes, it is perceived that the White House chose them. The vague nature of the agreement also left some unanswered questions as to what the firm would ultimately be asked to do. Paul Weiss also agreed to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Trump then issued Executive Order, “Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss,” to revoke EO 14237.
Some criticized the firm’s capitulation by settling instead of suing. As a result, several partners left the firm.
Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins”)
Executive order 14230, “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” suspended government contracts, limited government access, and prohibited hiring employees of the firm. Perkins previously represented Hilary Clinton, a former presidential opponent, and worked to defeat laws restricting voter access, such as voter identification requirements.
Perkins sued in D.C. District Court, and on May 2, 2025, a federal judge blocked the executive order. The judge found that the order violated due process and freedom of speech and punished the law firm for representing interests that opposed Trump.
Jenner & Block (“Jenner”)
Trump issued a similar order with Executive Order 14246, “Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block,” against the Jenner law firm. The EO was retaliation for the firm's employment of Andrew Weissman and its representation against Trump’s policies, such as immigration and transgender rights. Andrew Weissman worked for a firm involved in the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order suspended their security clearances, blocked them from federal buildings, and terminated contracts.
Jenner sued in federal court, claiming the executive orders violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and Fifth Amendment due process rights under the Constitution. On May 23, 2025, U.S. District Court ruled the executive order unconstitutional and punitive and compared Trump’s executive order to a screed against the law firm.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”)
Executive Order 14250, “Addressing Risks From WilmerHale,” targeted the firm due to its hiring of Robert Mueller. Mueller was the FBI director who investigated claims of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and its ties to then-President Donald Trump.
On May 27, 2025, a federal judge ruled the executive order was unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments.
The ABA’s Lawsuit
The ABA is a non-profit organization for legal professionals and is concerned about how the actions of the Executive Branch negatively impact lawyers, law firms, and legal services.
In the ABA’s lawsuit, they claim that “under this Administration’s Policy, lawyers and law firms face ‘peril’ if they ‘dare cross the federal government.’” They argue that even though judges correctly rule the executive orders as unconstitutional, the damage has been done. They claim that “law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes—including causes championed by the ABA—have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the Administration.”
The ABA is asking for all provisions of the executive orders to be declared unconstitutional and to prevent the government from enforcing these provisions against the ABA and its members.
Related Resources
- ABA Halts DEI Standard for Law School Accreditation (FindLaw Practice of Law)
- What are Executive Orders? What Are Their Limits? (FindLaw Law and Daily Life)
- What Are Law Firms Doing About Retaliation From the White House? (FindLaw Practice of Law)
