Executive Orders Against Law Firms: What Congress Can Do
The short answer
In the spring of 2025, the President issued executive orders against five law firms, citing the clients they represented, the cases they brought and the lawyers they hired. The orders suspended security clearances, barred firm employees from federal buildings, and pressured government contractors to drop them as counsel. Four firms sued: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Four federal judges, appointed by Presidents of both parties, struck all four orders down as unconstitutional. Nine other firms made deals instead, pledging about $940 million in free legal work. The government's appeals were argued in the D.C. Circuit on May 14, 2026, and a decision is pending.
This is not a story about sympathy for big law firms. It is about whether any American can hire a lawyer to challenge the government without the lawyer being punished for taking the case. Courts cannot stop unlawful government action on their own; a judge can rule only when someone brings a case. For much of the last two years, with Congress largely declining to use its oversight powers, it was lawyers, public interest groups and individual litigants who brought those cases, for clients and causes across the spectrum.
The Congress seated on January 3, 2027 can investigate, protect the right to counsel in statute, and share that burden again. Country over Party. Patriot over Partisan.
What happened
Each order followed the same template. Section 1 explained why the President disfavored the firm: its past work for a political opponent, lawyers who had served on the Mueller investigation, election or immigration litigation, or diversity programs. The remaining sections imposed penalties: suspending security clearances, cutting off access to federal buildings and officials, requiring government contractors to disclose their business with the firm, and directing agencies to terminate contracts with the firm's clients.
Date | Event |
May 14, 2026 | D.C. Circuit hears the government's consolidated appeals of all four rulings, along with a case over a whistleblower lawyer's security clearance. Decision pending. |
June 27, 2025 | Judge Loren AliKhan permanently blocks the Susman Godfrey order. |
May 27, 2025 | Judge Richard Leon declares the WilmerHale order unconstitutional under the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. |
May 23, 2025 | Judge John Bates declares the Jenner & Block order unconstitutional. |
May 2, 2025 | Judge Beryl Howell declares the Perkins Coie order unconstitutional, "null and void." |
Mar.–Apr. 2025 | Nine firms reach agreements with the administration to avoid orders, pledging about $940 million in pro bono work for causes the administration supports. |
Apr. 9, 2025 | Executive Order 14263 targets Susman Godfrey, citing its election-related litigation. |
Mar. 27, 2025 | Executive Order 14250 targets WilmerHale, citing its hiring of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and colleagues. |
Mar. 25, 2025 | Executive Order 14246 targets Jenner & Block, citing its former partner Andrew Weissmann and its pro bono litigation. |
Mar. 22, 2025 | A presidential memorandum directs the Attorney General to seek sanctions against lawyers who bring "frivolous" or "vexatious" litigation against the government. |
Mar. 14–21, 2025 | An order targets Paul, Weiss; it is rescinded a week later after the firm agrees to $40 million in pro bono work. |
Mar. 6, 2025 | Executive Order 14230 targets Perkins Coie, citing its 2016 work for the Clinton campaign. |
Feb. 25, 2025 | A memorandum suspends security clearances of Covington & Burling lawyers who advised former Special Counsel Jack Smith. |
The effect was immediate
The records show the orders worked as intended until courts stopped them. Judge Bates found "undisputed evidence" that Justice Department lawyers told a Jenner client not to bring its Jenner lawyers to a scheduled meeting, and that many clients contacted the firm with concerns about whether it could keep representing them. Perkins Coie told the court that clients were leaving. And nine other firms decided that settling was safer than fighting.
What the courts held
Four judges, two appointed by President George W. Bush, one by President Obama and one by President Biden, reached the same conclusion.
Perkins Coie (Judge Howell, May 2, 2025): "No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions." Quoting Justice Stevens, she warned that "disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government," and held the order violated the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees, and clients' right to counsel.
Jenner & Block (Judge Bates, May 23, 2025): The order "makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed." Retaliating against firms for their legal work violates the First Amendment's command that government may not "use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression," and it seeks to insulate "the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers."
WilmerHale (Judge Leon, May 27, 2025): "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!" The order, he wrote, "shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!"
Susman Godfrey (Judge AliKhan, June 27, 2025): The court permanently enjoined the order after earlier blocking its key provisions on April 15, 2025, the day the order was published.
Three principles run through every ruling:
Free speech. Representing clients and making arguments in court is protected expression, and the government may not punish it because it disagrees.
The right to counsel. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments protect a person's right to choose a lawyer "without interference by officialdom." As the Supreme Court said in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez (2001), "An informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar."
Separation of powers. If the Executive can punish the lawyers who sue it, it can choose which challenges reach the courts at all.
The government has appealed. The D.C. Circuit heard argument on May 14, 2026, with former Solicitor General Paul Clement arguing for the firms. Its ruling may go to the Supreme Court.
Beyond the big firms: lawyers, nonprofits and advocacy groups
The law firm orders were the most visible part of a broader pattern of executive action aimed at those who challenge the government. Each item below is documented in court records or official documents; several have been blocked by courts.
Sanctions threats against lawyers. The March 22, 2025 memorandum directed the Attorney General to seek sanctions against lawyers who bring litigation the administration considers frivolous, and to review lawyers' conduct in cases against the government. It named a prominent election lawyer, Marc Elias, by name.
Security clearances as leverage. Beyond the firm orders, the administration moved to strip the clearance of Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who represented whistleblowers. A federal judge blocked that in December 2025; the government's appeal was argued alongside the law firm cases.
Investigating a media watchdog. In August 2025, a federal judge blocked a Federal Trade Commission investigation of the nonprofit Media Matters for America, finding it likely retaliation for protected speech.
NSPM-7. A September 25, 2025 national security presidential memorandum directed Joint Terrorism Task Forces to investigate the "networks" and "funding sources" behind political violence, and directed Treasury and the IRS to ensure tax-exempt organizations are not funding it. It describes "common threads" including "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity." More than 3,000 nonprofits signed letters warning that the memo's vague terms could be used against lawful advocacy. Preventing political violence is a legitimate goal; the concern is that broad, undefined categories invite the use of terrorism tools against ordinary political opponents.
None of these actions depends on which causes a group supports. The same tools could be pointed at a conservative religious-liberty group, a gun-rights organization, a pro-life legal clinic or a taxpayer watchdog by a future administration of the other party.
Why courts can act only when someone brings a case
Federal courts do not patrol the government. Article III limits them to deciding actual "cases" and "controversies." A judge cannot strike down an unlawful executive order on her own initiative, investigate a policy because it appears in the news, or rule on a question no one has properly brought. Someone with standing, meaning a concrete injury caused by the government, must file a lawsuit, present evidence and make legal arguments. Without a litigant and a lawyer, even a plainly unconstitutional act can go unchallenged.
That is why the law firm orders mattered beyond the firms themselves. An executive that can punish lawyers for taking cases can reduce the number of cases that ever reach a judge.
Who filled the gap
Congress has its own tools to check the Executive: hearings, subpoenas, investigations, appropriations and legislation. Over the past two years, with majorities in both chambers largely declining to use those tools against the administration, much of the work of testing executive action fell to the courts, and therefore to whoever was willing to bring cases. That included:
Law firms that challenged the orders against them and, in many cases, represented clients for free.
Public interest and legal advocacy organizations across the spectrum, including Democracy Forward, the American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the Elias Law Group, Protect Democracy and the Brennan Center, as well as libertarian and conservative voices, such as the Cato Institute, that publicly concluded the law firm orders were unconstitutional.
States and cities, through their attorneys general, in cases involving funding, the National Guard and federal power.
Individual people, including federal workers, immigrants, students, veterans, small businesses and families, who put their names on lawsuits.
Former officials and bar associations that filed amicus briefs, including the American Bar Association.
This is not a claim that every lawsuit was right or every argument persuasive; courts rejected many. It is a recognition of how the system is designed: when one branch steps back, the remaining checks carry more weight, and they depend on ordinary citizens and their lawyers being free to go to court.
The government's side, fairly stated
Security clearances are an executive call. The President has broad authority over who receives access to classified information, and courts have traditionally deferred on clearance decisions. The government argues a court cannot second-guess them even if the motive is disputed.
The government chooses its contractors. Federal agencies may decide whom to do business with, and the government argued that a law firm's commercial relationships and hiring are not protected speech.
Real concerns about the legal profession. The orders cited diversity hiring practices that the administration views as unlawful discrimination, and lawyers who, in the administration's view, abused the legal system for partisan ends. The administration notes that frivolous litigation does real harm and that courts already sanction it.
The firms that settled did so voluntarily. The nine agreements were negotiated, and the firms told Congress they entered them willingly.
These are lower-court rulings. The appeals are pending, and a higher court could disagree.
Those points deserve a hearing, and the D.C. Circuit is giving them one. But four judges from both parties' appointees found that the orders said openly why the firms were chosen: their clients, their cases and their former lawyers. Concerns about discrimination or misconduct have established remedies, such as EEOC charges, bar discipline and court sanctions, which come with notice, evidence and a neutral decision-maker. An executive order naming a firm and imposing penalties without any of that is a different thing. And a settlement reached under threat of losing clients and government access is not the same as a free choice.
What a new Congress can do after January 3, 2027
Courts have done what they can, one lawsuit at a time and only after harm occurred. Congress can act before the next order is signed, and it can relieve citizens, lawyers and judges of having to carry the whole burden. Whichever party holds the majority in the 120th Congress, it has these tools:
1. Investigate
Hold public hearings in the Judiciary committees on the law firm orders, the nine settlements, the March 22, 2025 sanctions memorandum, and the use of security clearances against lawyers.
Obtain the records: how firms were selected, who drafted the orders, what was communicated to the settling firms, and how their pro bono commitments are being directed and counted.
Examine NSPM-7's implementation, including which organizations have been investigated, what IRS or Treasury actions were taken against tax-exempt groups, and what standards were applied.
Request Inspector General and GAO reviews of whether federal agencies used contracting, building access or regulatory investigations to retaliate against lawyers or advocacy groups.
2. Protect the right to counsel in statute
Bar retaliation for legal representation: no federal agency may deny contracts, clearances, building access or employment because of the clients a lawyer or firm represents or the lawful positions it takes in court.
Require due process for clearance actions against lawyers, with written reasons and an independent review.
Protect nonprofits' tax status from politically motivated review, with clear standards, notice and judicial review before any adverse action.
Define "domestic terrorism" tools narrowly, so that investigative powers built for violent groups cannot be aimed at lawful speech, advocacy or funding.
3. Use the power of the purse
Congress can prohibit appropriated funds from being used to implement any executive order or directive that targets a named law firm, lawyer or nonprofit for its lawful advocacy, and can fund the federal courts and legal aid so that access to justice does not depend on volunteer lawyers alone.
4. Do its own job
The most important thing a new Congress can do is use its own oversight powers, so that every question about executive power does not have to wait for a private litigant, a pro bono lawyer and a federal judge. A Congress that investigates, legislates and holds hearings in public shares the work the Constitution assigned to it.
The honest limits
Any new law faces a possible veto, which takes two-thirds of both chambers to override. Congress cannot overturn a court ruling or dictate a pending appeal. Subpoenas may be met with privilege claims. But hearings, subpoenas, funding conditions in must-pass bills and public reports do not need a veto-proof majority. They need a Congress that acts as a co-equal branch regardless of which party holds the White House.
Why every American should care
You may need a lawyer to stand up to the government. A tax dispute, a denied veterans' benefit, a seized property, a licensing fight, a wrongful arrest, a business regulation: every one requires a lawyer willing to take on a federal agency. If lawyers fear punishment for suing the government, the people who suffer are their clients.
The right to choose your lawyer is yours, not the government's. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments protect your right to counsel of your choice. A government that can blacklist firms decides, indirectly, who gets competent representation.
Unpopular clients are tomorrow's test case. John Adams defended the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. Lawyers have defended both civil rights marchers and members of groups most Americans despise. The principle that lawyers are not punished for their clients protects everyone, because any of us could become the unpopular client.
The same power will pass to the next President. An order punishing firms that sue over immigration policy today could punish firms that sue over gun rights, religious liberty or tax policy under a different administration.
Courts are only as strong as the cases brought to them. Judges cannot act on their own. Every attempt to scare off lawyers is also an attempt to keep questions away from the courts.
Congress's silence shifts the burden onto citizens. When the branch designed to investigate and check the Executive steps back, ordinary people and their lawyers must carry that load in court, at their own expense and risk.
Country over Party. Patriot over Partisan. You do not have to agree with any law firm's clients or any advocacy group's causes to defend the principle that lets you hire a lawyer and go to court.
Frequently asked questions
Which law firms were targeted by executive orders? Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. The Paul Weiss order was rescinded after the firm reached a deal; the other four firms sued.
Did the courts uphold the orders? No. Judges Beryl Howell, John Bates, Richard Leon and Loren AliKhan each held the orders unconstitutional in 2025. The government's appeals were argued in the D.C. Circuit on May 14, 2026, and a decision is pending.
What did the nine settling firms agree to? About $940 million in combined pro bono legal work for causes the administration supports, plus other commitments, in exchange for avoiding executive orders.
Why can't courts just stop unconstitutional actions on their own? Article III limits federal courts to actual cases brought by parties with standing. A judge can rule only when someone files a lawsuit and presents the issue.
What is NSPM-7? A September 25, 2025 presidential memorandum directing federal investigators to target the networks and funders behind political violence, including through Treasury and the IRS. Nonprofits across the spectrum have raised concerns about its broad terms.
What can Congress do? Hold hearings, obtain the records behind the orders and settlements, pass a law barring retaliation for legal representation, require due process for clearance and tax-status actions, narrow domestic terrorism tools, and use its funding power.
Is this a partisan issue? It should not be. The right to counsel protects every American, and judges appointed by Presidents of both parties struck the orders down.
Stay informed and get involved
The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program files amicus briefs, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and publishes plain-English analysis so that every American, regardless of party, can hold every branch of government to the Constitution. Watch Executive Coup, share this analysis, and ask every candidate for Congress one question: will you protect every American's right to hire a lawyer and challenge the government in court, no matter which party holds the White House?
Country over Party. Patriot over Partisan.
Related reading from Biazzo Law
This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Biazzo Law, PLLC does not represent any party in the cases discussed. Appeals are pending, and later developments may change the analysis. Attorney advertising.
Comments