Trump vs Big Law

Grok says: The recent developments reported on May 15, 2025, regarding WilmerHale and Jenner & Block’s legal battles against President Trump’s executive orders highlight a critical escalation in the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and major U.S. law firms, often referred to as "Big Law." These developments, as detailed in the provided New York Times article, show that despite judicial interventions, the Justice Department has proceeded with suspending security clearances for attorneys at both firms, a move that threatens their ability to handle cases involving federal government work. This situation fits into a broader pattern of Trump’s campaign targeting law firms perceived as political adversaries, particularly those linked to investigations like the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Below, I contextualize these developments with other recent events and analyze their significance.

Contextualizing Recent Developments

1. Trump’s Executive Orders and Retaliatory Campaign:
   • In March 2025, Trump issued executive orders targeting firms like WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and others, accusing them of undermining U.S. interests through their legal work, particularly pro bono efforts and past affiliations with prosecutors like Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann. These orders aimed to:
     • Suspend security clearances for firm attorneys.
     • Restrict access to federal buildings and officials.
     • Terminate government contracts involving these firms or their clients.
   • The orders explicitly cited ties to the Mueller investigation, naming Mueller (formerly of WilmerHale) and Weissmann (formerly of Jenner & Block, left in 2021), as well as the firms’ representation of clients opposing Trump’s policies, such as transgender rights and immigration cases.
   • The White House justified these actions as addressing “significant risks” from Big Law firms that allegedly engage in “partisan lawfare” or activities detrimental to national security.
2. Judicial Pushback and Temporary Relief:
   • Federal judges, including John Bates and Richard Leon (both George W. Bush appointees), issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) on March 28, 2025, blocking key provisions of the executive orders against WilmerHale and Jenner & Block. These rulings found the orders likely unconstitutional, citing violations of First Amendment free speech rights and due process, as they appeared to retaliate against the firms for their legal advocacy and client representation.
   • Judge Bates described the order against Jenner & Block as “disturbing” for targeting its pro bono work, while Judge Leon noted that WilmerHale’s order showed “retaliatory actions based on perceived viewpoint,” chilling speech and legal advocacy.
   • Earlier, on March 12, 2025, Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked a similar order against Perkins Coie, ruling it violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments by punishing the firm for its legal work, including ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Howell’s ruling, finalized in early May 2025, compared Trump’s actions to a mob destabilizing the legal system.
   • Despite these rulings, the Justice Department’s recent suspension of security clearances for WilmerHale and Jenner & Block attorneys, as reported on May 15, 2025, suggests defiance of the TROs, prompting urgent court filings by the firms.
3. Firms’ Legal Strategies and Impact:
   • WilmerHale and Jenner & Block filed lawsuits on March 28, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the executive orders were unconstitutional retaliation for their client representations and past employment of Mueller probe lawyers.
   • Both firms have sought summary judgments to permanently block the orders without trials, citing the straightforward legal question of their constitutionality, similar to Perkins Coie’s successful case.
   • The firms reported immediate business impacts, with Jenner & Block noting that 40% of its revenue comes from government contractors, and clients expressing concerns about severed relationships due to the orders. WilmerHale highlighted that 21 of its 25 largest clients (30% of revenue) have federal contracts, and the orders could scare off clients and hinder hiring.
   • Paul Clement, representing WilmerHale, and Cooley LLP, representing Jenner & Block, emphasized the orders’ threat to the rule of law and clients’ right to counsel.
4. Deals by Other Firms:
   • Unlike WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie, nine firms, including Skadden Arps ($100 million in pro bono work) and Paul Weiss ($40 million), struck deals with the Trump administration to avoid similar executive orders. These deals often involved pledging free legal services for causes like veterans’ affairs or countering antisemitism, and some included commitments to review hiring practices, such as abandoning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.