Trump’s Executive Orders Target Major Law Firms

Trump’s Executive Orders Target Major Law Firms \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Two top law firms, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, asked federal judges to permanently strike down Trump-era executive orders that they argue were meant to punish them. The orders suspend security clearances and block federal contracts. Judges previously paused some provisions, but new hearings aim to eliminate the orders entirely.

Quick Looks

• Who’s Suing: Perkins Coie and WilmerHale challenge Trump orders
• Why: Accusations of retaliation over past legal representations
• Current Status: Judges paused key provisions; permanent rulings sought
• Targeted Actions: Revoking security clearances, canceling contracts, federal access
• Additional Firms Involved: Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, Paul Weiss
• Judicial Concerns: Due process questions, comparisons to Red Scare
• Justice Dept. Defense: Claims DEI-based hiring raises legal concerns
• Trump’s Justification: National security, anti-bias hiring reform
• Judges’ Skepticism: Pressed DOJ on procedures and agency reviews
• Wider Impact: Dozens of firms targeted, some forced into settlements

Deep Look

Two of America’s most influential law firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — are asking federal judges to permanently strike down a pair of Trump administration executive orders they say were issued in retaliation for legal work linked to Donald Trump’s political opponents.

In back-to-back court hearings on Wednesday, attorneys for both firms laid out a case that the executive orders are unconstitutional and vindictive, alleging that they represent a coordinated campaign to punish dissenting voices within the legal profession. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who presided over Perkins Coie’s challenge, signaled serious concern over the legitimacy and legality of the administration’s actions.

“The entire executive order is retaliatory,” said Dane Butswinkas, representing Perkins Coie. “It has no legitimate basis in law or national security.”

Legal Fallout of Political Retaliation

Both law firms argue that the orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments, penalize them based on protected legal activity, and force ideological compliance under threat of federal punishment. They’re asking for the executive orders to be struck down in their entirety and for a permanent injunction to block any future enforcement.

The orders, issued in March 2025, suspend the security clearances of lawyers at targeted firms, terminate federal contracts, and restrict employee access to federal buildings — a trifecta of sanctions that legal experts say could amount to blacklisting.

These orders followed Trump’s February move against Covington & Burling, where attorneys had represented special counsel Jack Smith during his investigation of Trump. Covington’s attorneys lost their security clearances just days before Trump publicly criticized the firm.

Judicial Scrutiny: “Red Scare” Parallels and Due Process Concerns

Judge Howell showed clear unease with the administration’s arguments. During a tense exchange with Justice Department attorney Richard Lawson, she questioned the logic behind suspending security clearances en masse, comparing the move to the Red Scare-era blacklists.

“Why does the administration view diversity, equity, and inclusion as dirty words?” Howell asked, referencing a requirement that targeted firms disavow DEI policies in hiring.

Lawson insisted that Trump had the authority to issue the orders and claimed they addressed what he described as the “unlawful use of race and gender quotas” in hiring practices. But he struggled to articulate a clear process for reviewing or notifying affected attorneys about their status — which Howell repeatedly pressed.

“You can’t tell me which agencies are conducting this review?” she asked, growing visibly frustrated.

“You don’t know whether the firm or the attorney has been given notice?”

Lawson responded that the administration planned to implement individualized reviews, but Howell noted that this assurance came after clear signs of mass suspension.

Law Firms Singled Out for Political Ties

The administration’s executive orders cite past representations as justification. For example:

• Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.
• WilmerHale was previously home to Robert Mueller, the special counsel who investigated Trump’s 2016 campaign ties to Russia.
• Covington & Burling had represented Jack Smith, the prosecutor in the Trump indictment cases later dismissed.

In court filings, WilmerHale attorneys wrote:

“The president openly proclaims that he is targeting WilmerHale for representing his political opponents and for defending race-conscious admissions policies.”

That reference nods to the firm’s past involvement in defending affirmative action in higher education.

Settlement Pressure and Expanding Target List

While Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are fighting back, other firms have settled with the administration. In April, Paul Weiss reached an agreement that led to Trump rescinding the executive order against them. That deal reportedly required the firm to provide pro bono services to causes Trump’s administration supports.

Since then, at least eight additional firms have quietly signed similar agreements, including:

• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
• Milbank LLP
• Willkie, Farr & Gallagher
• Kirkland & Ellis
• Latham & Watkins LLP
• Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP
• Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
• Cadwalader, Taft & Wickersham LLP

In exchange, these firms reportedly agreed to forgo future DEI considerations and to support litigation aligned with Trump’s policies on immigration, national security, and education.

National Security Justifications Questioned

The administration maintains that national security is a central concern, claiming that attorneys with past political ties could be compromised. But Perkins Coie’s counsel rejected that premise outright.

“This isn’t about security — it’s about silencing dissent,” Butswinkas said. “The people singled out by this order left the firm years ago.”

He went on to argue that the orders were more about national insecurity than national security — driven by Trump’s desire to punish critics and reshape civil society around his agenda.

What Comes Next?

U.S. District Court rulings on both firms’ cases are expected in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, similar arguments from Jenner & Block will be heard next week, and Susman Godfrey is scheduled for its hearing in June.

These legal challenges could set major precedents about the scope of presidential power and the government’s ability to interfere in private legal representation. Legal experts say the outcome could also affect broader civil liberties protections, especially under administrations that seek retribution through regulation.

More on US News