Trump Escalates Authoritarian Push with Executive Order Targeting Sanctuary Cities

In a dramatic and controversial move, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at expanding federal control over immigration enforcement by penalizing sanctuary cities and militarizing domestic law enforcement. The order, which was released on April 28, 2025, calls for direct involvement of the U.S. military in law enforcement operations—openly challenging the Posse Comitatus Act, a longstanding statute that restricts military involvement in domestic affairs.

The order also provides sweeping protections for police officers, mandating the Department of Justice to create a legal support mechanism that shields officers from civil or criminal liability when performing their duties. In effect, it strengthens qualified immunity and adds a new layer of federal legal defense and indemnification, funded in part by compelled Biglaw pro bono services.

Executive Order Details: Military Enforcement and Biglaw Support for Police

The most alarming provisions of the executive order include:

• Military Involvement: The Department of Defense will coordinate with federal and local law enforcement in “high-crime” sanctuary jurisdictions.
• Legal Immunity Expansion: The Attorney General must create a system to provide legal resources to law enforcement officers who “unjustly incur expenses and liabilities” in the course of duty.
• Biglaw Pro Bono Requirement: The DOJ will collaborate with private law firms to assign pro bono attorneys to defend police accused of misconduct.

This marks a significant and dangerous shift—leveraging elite corporate legal talent to defend officers in cases that may involve civil rights violations or excessive force, particularly in racially charged contexts.

Biglaw’s Faustian Bargain Comes Due

The executive order has special significance for a group of high-profile firms that recently struck deals with the Trump administration. In exchange for avoiding retaliatory executive orders aimed at diversity programs and alleged political bias, firms such as:

• Kirkland & Ellis
• Latham & Watkins
• Skadden
• Paul Weiss
• Milbank
• Willkie Farr
• Simpson Thacher
• A&O Shearman
• Cadwalader

…agreed to provide hundreds of millions in pro bono legal services to government-approved causes. Now, those firms are learning the true price of compliance.

What began as an effort to safeguard firm interests has evolved into an open-ended commitment that includes defending police officers accused of brutality and civil rights abuses. And with nearly $950 million in total pro bono commitments pledged across these firms, the Trump administration appears poised to use that fund to reshape legal norms around policing, accountability, and civil liberties.

From DEI to Defense of Police Brutality: A Startling Shift

This is a stark departure from the post-George Floyd era of 2020, when many of the same firms issued statements in support of racial justice, pledged pro bono resources to civil rights organizations, and amplified their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

Today, these firms find themselves on the opposite side of that conversation—defending law enforcement officers implicated in the very injustices they once condemned.

The irony is especially bitter considering that:

• In 2020, these firms partnered with organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
• In 2025, they may now defend officers involved in high-profile use-of-force cases.

Can Firms Draw the Line?

Some firms, such as A&O Shearman, have attempted to claim internal boundaries on what types of cases they’ll accept under the executive order mandates. But as legal analysts and former DOJ officials have noted, there is no legal enforcement mechanism to prevent reassignment or escalation of these obligations.

As Above the Law’s Joe Patrice noted using a Star Wars analogy: the firms are playing the role of Lando Calrissian—trying to maintain a truce with an authoritarian regime that has no intention of keeping its word. The deal is “getting worse all the time,” and yet the firms remain too pot-committed to walk away without consequences.

Legal Ethics at a Crossroads

This situation raises significant questions about:

• The ethical obligations of law firms: Can a firm simultaneously protect civil rights and defend police misconduct?
• Client trust and public perception: What happens to a firm’s reputation when it’s seen defending officers in brutality cases?
• The independence of the legal profession: Is the legal sector being conscripted into a shadow enforcement arm of the executive branch?

With major firms now in a legally and politically precarious position, the profession faces a reckoning over how much compromise is too much when power is abused.

What Comes Next?

The most chilling question is: What else will these firms be asked—or told—to do? With $950 million in pro bono funds to burn, Trump’s DOJ may begin assigning these firms to prosecute immigration cases, defend surveillance policies, or even suppress protest-related lawsuits.

As long as these firms remain in Trump’s pro bono ecosystem, the boundaries of their involvement will be defined by the administration—not their stated values.

FAQs

Q: What is the Posse Comitatus Act and why is it relevant here?
A: The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the U.S. military from acting as domestic law enforcement. Trump’s executive order challenges this norm by encouraging military coordination with local police in sanctuary cities.

Q: Are law firms legally required to follow Trump’s executive orders?
A: The firms voluntarily entered into agreements in exchange for avoiding executive action. While not compelled by law, backing out would likely trigger further punitive orders or loss of federal contracts.

Q: Why is this seen as a threat to legal ethics?
A: Many believe these pro bono assignments compromise the profession’s independence by aligning law firms with politically motivated law enforcement priorities, particularly in cases that may involve civil rights violations.

Q: Have any firms pushed back against their role in defending police officers?
A: Some firms, such as A&O Shearman, have issued internal statements about limiting the scope of their work—but the effectiveness and credibility of those boundaries remain unclear.

The post Biglaw Firms Now Tied to Trump’s Police State Agenda After Executive Order Targets Sanctuary Cities first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Jenner & Block Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Trump’s Executive Order

On April 28, 2025, Jenner & Block LLP, a leading U.S. law firm, is set to ask U.S. District Judge John Bates to permanently strike down a controversial executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order sought to penalize the firm for its prior affiliation with Andrew Weissmann, a central figure in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 election.

The hearing will take place in Washington, D.C., at 10:30 a.m. ET (1430 GMT), marking a critical chapter in the escalating conflict between Trump’s administration and major law firms perceived to oppose him.

Why Jenner & Block Is Suing the Trump Administration

Jenner & Block filed suit shortly after Trump’s March 25 executive order, arguing that the order:

• Violates the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association.
• Breaches the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process before the government can restrict rights or impose penalties.

The firm contends that the administration’s actions amount to retaliation for protected legal activities and affiliations, setting a dangerous precedent for political interference in the independent practice of law.

Trump’s order specifically targeted Jenner over its past employment of Weissmann, accusing the firm of ties to what Trump continues to call a “hoax” and “witch hunt” regarding the Russia investigation.

What Trump’s Executive Order Against Jenner & Block Entails

The executive order aimed to:

• Restrict Jenner’s attorneys from accessing federal buildings and meeting with government officials.
• Terminate government contracts involving Jenner’s clients.
• Intimidate firms through threats of federal isolation and financial penalties.

This move was seen as part of Trump’s broader pressure campaign against lawyers and law firms connected to investigations or causes he opposes.

Other Law Firms Also Fighting Trump Executive Orders

Jenner & Block is not alone. At least three other major firms have filed similar lawsuits:

• WilmerHale
• Perkins Coie
• Susman Godfrey

Judges presiding over all four lawsuits have issued temporary injunctions, preventing the White House from enforcing key parts of the executive orders while the cases proceed.

Meanwhile, to avoid being targeted, nine other prominent law firms — including Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps — have pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to causes favored by the Trump administration.

(Read about law firms’ pro bono pledge here.)

The Broader Legal and Political Implications

Jenner & Block’s lawsuit goes beyond a mere business dispute. It raises urgent constitutional questions about:

• Government retaliation against private entities based on political affiliations.
• The erosion of the independence of the legal profession, traditionally protected from political pressure.
• The chilling effect on lawyers who represent unpopular or politically controversial clients.

The firm is also part of a larger coalition challenging the Trump administration’s policies affecting transgender rights and federal agency funding, indicating a growing legal resistance to executive overreach.

(Explore more about major corporate law firms suing the Trump administration.)

FAQs About Jenner & Block’s Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration

Q1: Why is Jenner & Block suing the Trump administration?
A: The firm argues that Trump’s executive order violates constitutional protections, punishing it for protected speech and affiliations related to the Russia investigation.

Q2: What was Jenner & Block’s connection to the Russia probe?
A: The firm previously employed Andrew Weissmann, who was a key prosecutor in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.

Q3: What other law firms are involved in lawsuits against the Trump administration?
A: Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have also filed suits to block executive orders targeting them.

Q4: What constitutional rights are at stake?
A: The First Amendment (free speech and association) and the Fifth Amendment (due process protections) are central to Jenner’s case.

Q5: How have other firms responded to Trump’s pressure?
A: Some firms pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to causes supported by the Trump administration in exchange for avoiding executive order targeting.

The post Jenner & Block Moves to Permanently Bar Trump Executive Order in Landmark Free Speech Battle first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Introduction

In a sweeping move to reshape the U.S. government workforce, President Donald Trump issued a new executive order on Thursday that significantly alters the way federal employees achieve permanent status after their probationary period.
The order mandates that government agencies must now affirmatively review and approve an employee’s performance before granting them full employment rights—marking a sharp shift from prior practices where probationary employees automatically transitioned to permanent roles unless specifically terminated.

This executive order is part of a broader Trump administration initiative to make it easier to fire federal workers, cut down the size of government, and eliminate internal resistance to presidential policies.

Key Changes Under the Executive Order

The executive order introduces several major changes to the federal employment process:

• Mandatory Performance Reviews:
  Agencies are now required to conduct individualized performance evaluations before a probationary employee can gain permanent status.
• End of Automatic Conversion:
  Previously, federal workers who completed a typical one- to two-year probationary period were automatically converted to permanent status unless removed. That automatic shift is now eliminated.
• Increased Accountability:
  Trump stated that agencies had often failed to remove underperforming probationary workers, leading to long-term retention of employees who were ill-suited for their roles.
• Individualized Appeals Process:
  The order includes provisions for an appeals mechanism, allowing workers who are denied permanent status to challenge the decision.
• Deadline for New Federal Regulations:
  The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must issue formal guidelines within 30 days requiring all agencies to comply with the new probationary review rules.

Why the Changes Matter

Trump’s move is aimed at addressing what he sees as systemic inefficiencies and protecting his administration’s agenda from internal dissenters.
Probationary employees historically enjoy fewer legal protections against termination than full-fledged federal workers. By tightening the probationary review process:

• Agencies can remove employees who are not aligned with their missions or expectations more easily.
• It becomes harder for employees who oppose administrative policies to secure long-term positions.
• The federal workforce may become more politically aligned with the administration in power, raising concerns about nonpartisan governance.

Broader Workforce Reform Efforts

This executive order follows several other controversial efforts by Trump—and influential adviser Elon Musk—to reshape the federal bureaucracy:

• Mass Terminations:
  In February, about 25,000 probationary federal employees were fired, initially cited for poor performance. Many of these terminations were later challenged in court, with federal judges ordering reinstatement in numerous cases. However, many of these rulings are paused pending appeals.
• Reclassification of Policy Roles:
  The Trump administration has sought to reclassify an estimated 50,000 government jobs as policymaking positions. This move would strip these workers of civil service protections and allow for more politically motivated firings.
• Legal Challenges:
  Labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and Democrat-led states have filed numerous lawsuits challenging these reforms, arguing they politicize the federal workforce and undermine merit-based civil service principles.

Reactions and Concerns

Critics argue that these actions threaten the traditional apolitical nature of the federal government:

• Union Opposition:
  Federal employee unions have condemned the order, stating it will lead to widespread instability, unfair firings, and political favoritism.
• Nonprofit and State Legal Action:
  Legal experts and civil rights organizations have raised alarms over potential violations of employee rights and constitutional protections.
• Democratic Lawmakers’ Response:
  Several Democratic officials have promised to fight these changes both in court and through legislative means if necessary.

Supporters, however, claim the move increases government efficiency and ensures that only competent and committed individuals remain employed in federal roles.

What Happens Next?

Within 30 days, the OPM must establish and publish new rules detailing:

• Agency responsibilities for individualized probationary reviews
• Criteria for evaluating performance
• Procedures for appeals by terminated probationary employees

Agencies will then have to integrate these changes into their internal hiring and human resources protocols.
The results could deeply affect the composition, performance, and political leanings of the federal workforce moving into future administrations.

FAQs

What is a probationary period for federal employees?

The probationary period is typically a one- to two-year trial phase during which federal employees are evaluated to determine if they should receive permanent status.

How did the rules work before Trump’s executive order?

Previously, most employees automatically became permanent after completing the probationary period unless they were actively terminated during that time.

What are the main concerns about the new probationary review process?

Critics worry that requiring affirmative performance reviews could lead to politically motivated firings, weaken merit-based hiring, and destabilize federal agencies.

Will terminated employees have any rights to appeal?

Yes. The executive order specifies that probationary employees who are denied permanent status must have an individualized appeals process available to them.

How does this fit into Trump’s broader efforts to reshape the government?

The order is part of a larger initiative, influenced by advisers like Elon Musk, aimed at shrinking the federal workforce, making it more loyal to the administration, and increasing managerial flexibility.

The post Trump Tightens Rules for Federal Employees After Probationary Period in Major Workforce Shakeup first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Introduction

In a dramatic show of solidarity, hundreds of BigLaw partners and former judges have voiced their support for Susman Godfrey LLP in its legal battle against an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The executive action, widely criticized as retaliatory and unconstitutional, specifically targeted Susman Godfrey for representing politically disfavored clients. Leading figures in the legal community warn that yielding to political pressure endangers the independence of the bar and the very foundation of the rule of law.

This escalating clash has become a flashpoint for issues of lawyer independence, judicial integrity, and separation of powers — and could shape the future of attorney-client representation in the United States.

What the Lawsuit Is About

Susman Godfrey LLP filed suit after Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to terminate all contracts and refuse to engage with law firms representing clients “in opposition to American values,” a phrase many have deemed vague and unconstitutional.

At the heart of the firm’s complaint:

• Violation of First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and association.
• Retaliation against attorneys for representing unpopular or politically disfavored clients.
• Chilling effect on lawyers’ willingness to represent controversial clients in the future.
• Separation of powers concerns, as the executive branch attempts to punish private actors without judicial due process.

Legal scholars and practitioners alike have labeled the order an abuse of executive power that could set a dangerous precedent.

BigLaw and Judicial Heavyweights Speak Out

On Friday, over 300 partners from major firms—including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Gibson Dunn, and Skadden Arps—joined more than 50 retired judges in filing an amicus brief supporting Susman Godfrey.

Their message was clear:

“If the independent bar is cowed into submission by executive fiat, the rule of law itself will suffer irreparable harm.”

The signatories argue that lawyers must be free to represent all clients, regardless of political popularity, without fear of government retaliation. The brief stresses that:

• The Constitution protects the attorney-client relationship as critical to ensuring equal justice.
• Efforts to intimidate or punish lawyers based on who they represent violate fundamental legal norms.
• The executive order creates a hostile environment for attorneys, chilling advocacy and undermining civil liberties.

Why This Fight Matters for the Legal Profession

The lawsuit isn’t just about one firm—it’s about preserving the independence of the entire legal profession.

Key implications include:

• Freedom of Representation: Lawyers must be free to advocate without fear of retaliation.
• Checks and Balances: Executive overreach into the legal profession undermines constitutional safeguards.
• Client Access to Justice: If firms refuse to represent controversial clients out of fear, marginalized groups will lose vital legal protections.
• Rule of Law: A strong, independent bar is essential for maintaining a fair legal system where government power is subject to limits.

Legal organizations, including the American Bar Association and state bar associations, have also voiced concern about the broader chilling effect the executive order could have if allowed to stand.

The Larger Constitutional Crisis Looming

Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey is part of a larger pattern of efforts to intimidate institutions that act independently from the executive branch.

This incident parallels other ongoing legal battles involving:

• Targeting law schools over perceived political biases.
• Punishing media outlets for unfavorable coverage.
• Pressuring private universities by threatening to cut federal funding based on ideological grounds.

Many experts warn that these cumulative actions pose a serious threat to constitutional democracy. Allowing government officials to selectively punish attorneys based on who they represent would erode the rights to due process, free speech, and fair access to the courts.

What’s Next for the Susman Godfrey Case?

The lawsuit is expected to proceed through the federal courts, where it may ultimately land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Key issues the courts will decide include:

• Whether the executive order violates the First Amendment.
• Whether Susman Godfrey has standing to challenge the executive order.
• Whether the government can legally penalize private parties for the clients they choose to represent.

Given the stakes, this could become a landmark case defining executive authority and lawyer independence for years to come.

FAQs

What is Susman Godfrey suing over?

Susman Godfrey LLP is challenging a Trump executive order that they argue retaliates against the firm for representing politically disfavored clients, violating their constitutional rights to free speech and association.

Why are BigLaw partners and judges supporting Susman Godfrey?

Hundreds of legal leaders believe that permitting political retaliation against law firms will weaken the independence of the bar, chill advocacy, and undermine the rule of law in the U.S.

Could this case affect all law firms?

Yes. If the courts uphold Trump’s executive order, it could open the door to future governments punishing firms based on the clients they serve, threatening the attorney-client relationship and access to justice.

What are the constitutional issues involved?

Key constitutional questions include violations of the First Amendment (free speech, free association) and separation of powers concerns regarding executive overreach into the legal system.

How might this case impact the rule of law?

If attorneys are intimidated into refusing to represent disfavored clients, it could erode core principles of justice, access to legal representation, and constitutional checks on government power.

The post Hundreds of BigLaw Partners and Judges Rally Behind Susman Godfrey in Lawsuit Against Trump Executive Order first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Overview: Federal Court Challenges Anti-Transgender Passport Policy

In a landmark decision on Friday, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick ruled that a Trump administration policy denying transgender and nonbinary Americans the ability to obtain passports that reflect their gender identities is likely unconstitutional. However, the ruling stopped short of a nationwide injunction, limiting relief to six of the seven plaintiffs who brought the case.

The decision follows a legal challenge to a 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump shortly after returning to office. The order mandated the federal government—and specifically the U.S. Department of State—to recognize only two “biologically distinct” sexes: male and female.

Judge Kobick: Policy Reflects “Irrational Prejudice”

In her decision, Judge Kobick—a Biden appointee based in Boston—found that the policy violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. She emphasized that the executive order and resulting passport rules were based on “irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans.”

“The Executive Order and Passport Policy are based on irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans and therefore offend our Nation’s constitutional commitment to equal protection for all Americans,” Judge Kobick wrote in her opinion.

While the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of six plaintiffs—allowing them to receive passports that reflect their actual gender identities—it did not issue a blanket nationwide injunction, noting a lack of specific justification for such a sweeping remedy at this stage.

Background: Reversal of Decades of Inclusive Policy

The lawsuit is one of several filed in response to Executive Order 14089, signed by Trump in January 2025. The order reversed multiple Biden-era protections, including the right of passport applicants to choose “X” as a gender-neutral option.

The Trump-era policy directed the State Department to issue passports based solely on an applicant’s “biological sex at birth”, barring individuals from self-identifying as male, female, or nonbinary.

Notably, this represented a drastic shift from established practice:

• For over 30 years, the State Department had allowed updates to passport gender markers.
• In 2022, the Biden administration introduced nonbinary “X” markers on passports, aligning federal policy with global standards and supporting gender-diverse individuals.

Plaintiffs and ACLU Response

The lawsuit was filed by seven individuals, all of whom are transgender or nonbinary. They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been at the forefront of defending LGBTQ+ rights against federal restrictions.

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, expressed cautious optimism after the ruling:

“We will do everything we can to ensure this order is extended to everyone affected by the administration’s misguided and unconstitutional policy so that we all have the freedom to be ourselves.”

The ruling represents a partial victory in what is likely to be a longer legal battle, with future motions and possibly an appeal expected.

Legal and Political Implications

The case raises pressing questions about:

• The federal government’s role in recognizing gender identity
• The constitutional limits of executive power in targeting marginalized communities
• The broader rollback of LGBTQ+ rights under the second Trump administration

Legal experts have noted that the ruling may set a precedent for other courts reviewing similar executive actions, especially those stemming from EO 14089 or related regulatory changes across federal agencies.

This decision also underscores the growing judicial scrutiny of policies that appear to be motivated by political ideology rather than legitimate governmental interests.

What’s Next?

While the plaintiffs secured immediate relief, the court’s decision to limit its scope could lead to further litigation across multiple jurisdictions, especially given the widespread impact of the passport restrictions.

It remains to be seen whether the Biden-era passport options will be restored or whether the current administration’s stance will survive further constitutional challenges.

As of now:

• The State Department has not commented on the ruling.
• The White House has remained silent on whether it will appeal or revise the policy.

Observers expect this issue to eventually reach appellate courts, and potentially the Supreme Court, given the implications for gender recognition, executive authority, and civil rights enforcement.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is the Trump passport policy still in effect?

Yes, the policy remains in effect nationwide except for six plaintiffs in the Boston case. A broader injunction has not yet been issued.

What did the Trump executive order say?

It directed federal agencies to recognize only male and female sexes, excluding nonbinary or self-identified gender designations from federal documentation, including passports.

Can transgender individuals still get an “X” on their passport?

Currently, no. The Trump administration reversed the 2022 policy that allowed applicants to choose “X” as a gender marker. The court’s decision did not restore that right for all applicants.

What are the legal arguments against the policy?

Plaintiffs argue that the policy violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment by discriminating based on sex and gender identity. The judge agreed that the policy likely stems from animus toward transgender people.

Will this case go to the Supreme Court?

It’s possible. Given the constitutional questions and the widespread effect of the policy, appellate courts—and potentially the Supreme Court—may be asked to weigh in if the administration continues to enforce the policy or if conflicting rulings emerge in other courts.

The post Federal Judge Rules Trump-Era Passport Policy for Trans and Nonbinary Americans Likely Unconstitutional — But Stops Short of Nationwide Ban first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a dramatic move on March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a new executive order targeting the high-profile law firm Jenner & Block, continuing his aggressive campaign against legal organizations involved in litigation opposing his policies. The directive follows earlier executive actions against other major firms, including Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss.

The executive order suspends security clearances for Jenner & Block lawyers, blocks their access to federal buildings and officials, and restricts their ability to obtain federal contracting work.

The order, signed March 25 at the White House, suspends security clearances for Jenner & Block attorneys, restricts their access to federal buildings and officials, and limits their eligibility for federal contracting work. The justification? Jenner & Block’s representation of clients challenging Trump’s policies on immigration, transgender healthcare, and environmental issues—and its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, the former federal prosecutor who served on Robert Mueller’s special counsel team during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Why Jenner & Block Is Under Fire

Jenner & Block, a storied firm with a 100-year legacy, has long been involved in high-profile public interest and constitutional litigation. Most recently, the firm helped secure a court ruling blocking the enforcement of a Trump executive order that aimed to strip federal funding from healthcare providers offering gender-affirming care to individuals under 19.

Additionally, the firm is representing immigrant-rights groups suing to stop the Trump administration’s renewed efforts to restrict asylum rights—a key plank in the President’s broader immigration crackdown since returning to office in January 2025.

Jenner & Block is also counsel in an environmental lawsuit accusing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Trump of unlawfully freezing grant funding. These cases, among others, appear to have placed the firm squarely in the crosshairs of the White House.

The Weissmann Connection: Fueling Trump’s Grievances

President Trump cited Jenner & Block’s past employment of Andrew Weissmann—once a top prosecutor under Robert Mueller—as a key reason for the executive action. Weissmann, who was at the firm from 2006 to 2011 and returned in 2020, has long been a target of Trump’s ire due to his central role in the Mueller investigation.

Although Weissmann has not commented on the latest developments, the executive order reflects Trump’s continued attempts to link current legal opposition to individuals and firms associated with past investigations into his conduct.

Legal Community Reacts: “Unconstitutional and Chilling”

In a statement, Jenner & Block denounced the executive order as resembling one that “has already been declared unconstitutional” in federal court. The firm vowed to defend its clients and its legal independence vigorously:

“We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients’ interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies.”

Legal experts and bar associations across the country are sounding the alarm. Critics warn that the executive orders attack the core tenets of the U.S. legal system—the right of clients to secure legal representation without political interference and the duty of lawyers to provide counsel without fear of retaliation.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked parts of a similar executive order targeting Perkins Coie. In her decision, Howell stated that the firm’s lawsuit against the administration was likely to succeed, describing the situation as deeply troubling for the rule of law:

“I am sure many in the legal profession are watching in horror about what Perkins Coie is going through here.”

White House Justifies Order as “Defense of American Principles”

White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf defended the President’s actions, accusing Jenner & Block of engaging in the “weaponization of the legal system against American principles and values.” The administration argues that the executive orders are necessary to prevent politically motivated lawfare from undermining governmental authority.

Yet this rationale has done little to quell concern among attorneys and constitutional scholars who see the orders as a dangerous precedent—one that could discourage firms from taking on politically sensitive cases for fear of government retaliation.

Paul Weiss Caved to Pressure—Will Jenner & Block?

Paul Weiss, one of the first firms targeted by Trump, reportedly reached an agreement with the White House to escape further sanctions. In a letter to staff, Chairman Brad Karp described the situation bluntly:

“The order could easily have destroyed our firm.”

Whether Jenner & Block will pursue a similar deal remains uncertain. The firm’s ties to high-profile Democratic administrations—employing numerous former officials from the Obama and Biden White Houses, as well as alumni from the congressional committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack—suggest it may instead choose to challenge the executive order in court.

Growing List of Targets: Immigration Lawyers Next?

Trump’s actions don’t stop at firms like Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. On Friday, he directed the Department of Justice to explore similar sanctions against attorneys and firms who have represented immigrants or sued the federal government at any point over the past eight years. This move potentially affects dozens of the largest and most respected law firms in the country.

The American Bar Association and other legal organizations have condemned the executive orders, arguing that they could create a chilling effect on legal representation, particularly in controversial or politically charged cases.

What This Means for the Legal Profession

As Trump continues his crusade against perceived legal adversaries, law firms across the nation are grappling with a sobering question: Will representing certain clients or causes now carry political risk?

For Jenner & Block, the latest executive order is more than a policy dispute—it’s a defining moment that could shape the future of legal independence in the United States.

Whether the courts will intervene again to block these orders remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that the stakes—for law firms, the legal profession, and the rule of law—have never been higher.

The post Trump Targets Jenner & Block in Unprecedented Executive Order Amid Legal Retaliation Campaign first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Trump’s Executive Order Targets Perkins Coie Over Security Clearances and Federal Contracts

In a significant move against a high-profile law firm, former U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday suspending security clearances for employees of Perkins Coie. The order also mandates a thorough review of federal contractors working with the firm, citing concerns over its diversity initiatives and political activities.

Background: Perkins Coie’s Role in U.S. Politics

Seattle-based Perkins Coie has been a frequent target of Trump and his allies due to its past legal work for his 2016 Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The firm has also been involved in lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies, including cases related to immigration and transgender rights.

The executive order extends beyond Perkins Coie, as it also directs federal officials to investigate “large, influential, or industry-leading law firms” to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

Trump’s Justification for the Executive Order

Will Scharf, a key Trump aide, announced during the Oval Office signing that the order aims to curb unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices within major U.S. law firms. Scharf stated:

“This executive order will suspend security clearances and access to certain federal resources for that law firm and also launch a holistic review of unlawful DEI practices at some of the nation’s largest law firms.”

Trump emphasized the significance of the order, stating it was “an absolute honor to sign.”

Legal Challenges and Precedents

Perkins Coie swiftly responded, declaring the executive order “patently unlawful” and signaling intentions to challenge it. Legal experts suggest the action is unprecedented, as presidential administrations have historically avoided targeting specific law firms for political or diversity-related reasons.

Michael Frisch of Georgetown University’s law school remarked:

“It is a foundation of the legal profession that everyone is entitled to a defense, and you don’t judge a lawyer or law firm by the client it chooses to represent.”

Similarly, Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former associate White House counsel, questioned the national security justification for revoking security clearances based on a firm’s diversity initiatives.

Implications for Federal Contractors and National Security

The executive order goes beyond security clearances, requiring federal agencies to:

• Restrict Perkins Coie employees’ access to federal government buildings.
• Refrain from hiring Perkins Coie employees unless specifically authorized.
• Block business with contractors that maintain relationships with Perkins Coie.
• Investigate whether Perkins Coie’s practices compromise national security interests.

The order echoes a similar directive issued the previous week against Covington & Burling, another major law firm. In that case, Trump revoked security clearances for lawyers who had provided pro bono assistance to former U.S. special counsel Jack Smith, who led two criminal prosecutions against the former president.

Diversity Controversy and Edward Blum’s Lawsuit

Perkins Coie has also been embroiled in a separate legal battle over its diversity initiatives. In August 2023, a lawsuit spearheaded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum alleged that the firm’s diversity fellowships unlawfully excluded certain individuals based on race. Perkins Coie revised the criteria for its fellowship program in response, leading to the lawsuit’s dismissal two months later.

Corporate Clients and Potential Fallout

Perkins Coie is widely recognized for its representation of major technology companies, including:

• Alphabet (Google): The firm is currently defending Google against a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee, alleging the company filtered its emails into spam folders.
• Amazon: Perkins Coie has represented Amazon in multiple legal disputes.

Both companies have yet to issue official statements regarding the executive order’s potential impact on their legal representation.

What’s Next?

As legal scholars and political analysts examine the implications of Trump’s latest executive action, questions arise about its enforceability and potential consequences for federal contractors and major law firms. The legal battle over the executive order is likely to escalate, shaping the intersection of law, politics, and corporate influence in the coming months.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Why did Trump target Perkins Coie with an executive order?

Trump’s executive order cites concerns over the firm’s diversity practices, past political activities, and its legal challenges against his administration. The order also aims to scrutinize federal contractors with ties to Perkins Coie.

2. How does this order affect Perkins Coie employees?

The order suspends security clearances for Perkins Coie employees, restricts their access to federal buildings, and limits government agencies from hiring them without specific authorization.

3. Has a U.S. president ever taken similar action against a law firm?

Legal experts say this is an unprecedented move. Historically, law firms have not been targeted for their diversity initiatives or political affiliations at this level.

4. What does this mean for Perkins Coie’s corporate clients?

Major clients such as Google and Amazon may need to reassess their legal representation if the firm’s ability to handle government-related cases is compromised.

5. What legal challenges could arise from this order?

Perkins Coie has already indicated it will challenge the executive order, likely leading to litigation over its legality and constitutional implications.

The post Trump’s Executive Order Targets Perkins Coie: Security Clearance Suspensions and Federal Contract Scrutiny first appeared on JDJournal Blog.