Top Law Firms Fight Back Against Trump Crackdown

- 16 June, 2025

KEY ISSUES

Firms fighting executive orders placed by the Trump administration in federal courts
Teams are being praised for defending constitutional principles and client confidentiality
Top attorneys are sending resignations due to unlawful practices creating a divide in the legal industry
Top law firms targeted by Trump executive orders and current developments

Firms Fighting vs. Appeasing

Resisting executives:

A notable group of elite law firms—including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—have chosen to resist politically charged executive actions through direct constitutional challenges in federal court. These firms targeted by Trump administration executive orders banning or limiting their access to federal contracts. Citing their past affiliations with Democratic officials or support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Rather than negotiate or alter their policies, these firms immediately filed lawsuits and secured favorable court rulings.

Example being, Perkins Coie obtaining a permanent injunction against the enforcement of Executive Order 14230. The court ruling that the order violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Jenner & Block, similarly targeted, won a partial restraining order and remains in active litigation challenging broader aspects of the restrictions. These firms have been praised for defending constitutional principles and client confidentiality, and their stances have attracted both new talent and clients who view them as uncompromising advocates of the rule of law ().

Complying firms:

In contrast, several top-tier firms—including Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, and Latham & Watkins—opted to negotiate with the administration to avoid direct sanctions. These firms entered into large-scale pro bono and public interest commitments. Collectively nearing $1 billion—in exchange for the restoration of federal privileges, including security clearances and government contracts. The deals often involved revisions to internal DEI policies and the quiet departure of high-profile attorneys associated with Democratic causes.

However, these concessions have drawn criticism from within and outside the legal community. Paul Weiss, for instance, saw the high-profile resignation of former U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, who publicly decried the firm’s cooperation with what he called “an unlawful political purge.” Multiple clients, including Oracle and Morgan Stanley, have reportedly severed ties, and internal dissent—especially among junior lawyers and associates—has grown more vocal. This divergence in strategy is shaping a new reputational divide in Big Law, as firms that sought accommodation now face long-term fallout, while those that fought back are being hailed as defenders of legal independence.

Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms

Perkins Coie

The first major law firm directly targeted by the Trump administration’s executive actions. On March 6, 2025, Executive Order 14230 was issued, banning all federal agencies from contracting with the firm, suspending its attorneys’ security clearances, and initiating a review of existing engagements. The White House cited Perkins Coie’s longstanding ties to the Democratic Party—including its representation of the Clinton campaign—and accused the firm of embedding political bias into legal proceedings. In response, Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the executive order violated multiple constitutional protections.

Judge Beryl Howell granted a temporary restraining order within days, and later issued a permanent injunction blocking the order. Her ruling emphasized that the government’s actions infringed on the firm’s First Amendment rights, denied due process, and threatened attorney-client confidentiality. The case became a touchstone for the legal community, signaling that courts would not tolerate executive overreach in retaliating against political affiliations.

Jenner & Block

was similarly targeted just weeks later, on March 25, 2025, under a related executive order that alleged the firm’s prior work with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and attorney Andrew Weissmann rendered it “untrustworthy” for federal contracts. Like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block responded with a federal lawsuit challenging the order’s legality and the abrupt revocation of its federal security clearances. The firm emphasized that the executive action amounted to viewpoint discrimination and retaliation for its attorneys’ previous government service.

Although the court did not grant full injunctive relief as quickly as it had for Perkins Coie, it did issue a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of key provisions of the order, particularly those that affected ongoing representations and classified matters. Jenner’s litigation remains active, but it has already helped establish a pattern of judicial skepticism toward executive orders that appear punitive and politically motivated. The firm’s refusal to compromise has bolstered its reputation as a defender of independent legal advocacy ().

Covington & Burling

became a third major target in late February 2025, when the administration ordered a suspension of the firm’s government clearances and opened a contract review process—this time without issuing a formal executive order. The action was prompted by Covington’s defense of Special Counsel Jack Smith in prior proceedings and its outspoken criticism of Trump’s legal theories in public filings. Rather than complying quietly, Covington joined the growing resistance and filed suit, alleging that the government’s informal sanctions amounted to a de facto blacklisting that violated constitutional norms.

The firm’s case highlights a more insidious form of retaliation—executive pressure exerted without clear legal grounding or due process. While litigation is still underway, Covington’s decision to challenge the actions head-on aligned it with the broader coalition of firms fighting back against politically motivated executive interference. The firm has since reaffirmed its commitment to representing controversial clients and causes, making it a leading voice in the pushback against politicized legal suppression.

�鶹APP