Support

Executive Influence on Law Firms

The orders, the firms that fought, and the firms that folded · Active

Beginning in March 2025, President Trump signed a series of executive orders against major law firms, most of which had ties to lawyers or causes he opposed. Each order suspended the security clearances of the firm's attorneys, restricted their access to federal buildings, directed agencies to terminate government contracts, and told federal officials not to hire the firm's people. Four firms, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, sued and won, with federal judges striking the orders down as unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. Roughly nine other firms took a different path, cutting deals with the White House that the administration valued at about $1 billion in pro bono work, several of them without any order ever being signed against them. This matter tracks the orders, the lawsuits, the appeals, and the deals, side by side.

The Firms That Fought
Perkins Coie targeted, then wins
1:25-cv-00716 · D.D.C. · 2025-03-11
Executive Order 14230 (March 6, 2025) was the first, revoking security clearances and government contracts over the firm's past election work. Perkins Coie sued, and on May 2, 2025 Judge Beryl Howell permanently struck the order down as unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech, the first firm to win. The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit (No. 25-5241).
On Appeal → Full case page
EO 14230 (Federal Register) NPR: judge strikes down order (May 2, 2025) Docket on CourtListener
The Firms That Folded
Paul Weiss targeted, then cuts a deal
EO 14237 / EO 14244 · 2025-03-14
Executive Order 14237 (March 14, 2025) targeted Paul Weiss over a former partner who had investigated Trump. Within days the firm agreed to roughly $40 million in pro bono work and other concessions, and the President rescinded the order through Executive Order 14244 (March 21, 2025), titled 'Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss.' That deal became the template other firms followed.
Closed
EO 14237 targeting Paul Weiss (FR) EO 14244 rescinding it after the deal (FR)
The Firms That Fought
Jenner & Block targeted, then wins
1:25-cv-00916 · D.D.C. · 2025-03-28
Executive Order 14246 (March 25, 2025) targeted Jenner & Block. The firm sued, and on May 23, 2025 Judge John Bates granted summary judgment, calling the order 'doubly violative of the Constitution' for punishing the firm over its clients and causes. The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit (No. 25-5265).
On Appeal → Full case page
EO 14246 targeting Jenner & Block (FR) CNN: judge overturns the order (May 23, 2025) Docket on CourtListener
The Firms That Fought
WilmerHale targeted, then wins
1:25-cv-00917 · D.D.C. · 2025-03-28
Executive Order 14250 (March 27, 2025) targeted WilmerHale, a firm tied to Robert Mueller. On May 27, 2025 Judge Richard Leon struck it down, calling it 'a staggering punishment' for protected speech and finding violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the separation of powers.
Closed → Full case page
EO 14250 targeting WilmerHale (FR) CNN: judge strikes down the order (May 27, 2025) Docket on CourtListener
The Firms That Folded
The capitulation wave: nine firms, about $1 billion
No litigation · 2025-04-12
As the orders landed, a group of firms chose to settle rather than sue. The White House said it reached deals with roughly nine firms, including Skadden, Willkie, Milbank, Kirkland, Latham, A&O Shearman, Cadwalader, and Simpson Thacher, for about $1 billion in combined pro bono work that the administration said could serve its own priorities. Several of those firms were never named in an order at all, the threat of one was enough.
Closed
Axios: the pro bono deals (Apr 12, 2025) NPR: deals made 'with a gun to the head' (May 31, 2025)
The Firms That Fought
Susman Godfrey targeted, then wins
1:25-cv-01107 · D.D.C. · 2025-04-11
Executive Order 14263 (April 9, 2025) targeted Susman Godfrey, a firm known for its role in defamation litigation against election-fraud claims. The firm sued, and on June 27, 2025 Judge Loren AliKhan struck the order down on the same First Amendment grounds. The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit (No. 25-5310).
On Appeal → Full case page
EO 14263 targeting Susman Godfrey (FR) Docket on CourtListener
The Firms That Fought
The American Bar Association sues over the campaign
1:25-cv-01888 · D.D.C. · 2025-06-16
The ABA filed its own suit challenging the broader pressure campaign against the profession, arguing the government cannot condition access and contracts on a firm's viewpoints or its choice of clients. The case remains active into 2026, including a fight over the government's attempt to disqualify the firm's own counsel and a stipulated protective order entered July 31, 2026.
Active → Full case page
Docket on CourtListener
The Firms That Fought
The fight moves to the D.C. Circuit
Nos. 25-5241, 25-5265, 25-5310 · D.C. Cir. · 2026-01-02
Having lost all four district court cases, the government appealed. The challenges are now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where the firms' briefs came due in late January 2026. The appeals will decide whether the district courts' First Amendment rulings stand.
Pending
Overview: the battle heads into 2026
The Firms That Folded
Congress presses the firms that settled
No litigation · 2026-01-15
The deals drew sustained scrutiny. Congressional Democrats, including Representative Jamie Raskin and Senators Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff, demanded answers from the settling firms over what they had agreed to and whether the commitments were enforceable, as commentators debated whether the firms had traded independence for relief.
Closed
House Judiciary Democrats: demand for answers
Updated 2026-08-02 · 9 cases tracked