To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The law firms fighting back against Trump’s executive orders are winning, and those cutting deals with the White House are suffering irreparable damage behind the scenes.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s political attack on the legal profession has entered a realm we have never seen before. The campaign of intimidation against firms that represent clients and causes he does not like shows no signs of stopping.
The battle is at a turning point. From the outside, it appears the profession is divided, with two firms caving in to Trump’s demands and three firms fighting in court. Trump has promoted his success in bringing two large firms to heel so that he is viewed as holding the upper hand and his power is enhanced.
That is not what is happening in court. The momentum has shifted, and the president has the losing hand. Lost amid the shock that accompanied the initial wave of punishing executive orders is that those fighting back are winning in court and those cutting deals with the White House are suffering irreparable damage behind the scenes where law firm reputations, clients, and the best legal talent are won and lost.
Firms that have yet to be targeted have to ask themselves the question: When the law has dealt you a winning hand, why would you fold?
It is critical right now that the next firms targeted choose to fight and not fold. To understand why, law firms should take a close look at what has been happening in the three cases where firms are standing and fighting, and the fallout facing the firms that have folded.
So far, Trump has issued five executive orders against leading law firms. Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps capitulated, agreeing to provide as much as $100 million in free legal services to support Trump initiatives. Three other large firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—are fighting in federal court, with remarkably quick and unanimous success.
Perkins, Wilmer, and Jenner all claimed that the retaliatory orders terminating all federal contracts with the firms, barring their employees from access to federal buildings, and subjecting the firms’ clients to onerous and punitive disclosure requirements constituted retaliation for protected “viewpoint” speech that violated the firms’ First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights.
Judge Beryl Howell (appointed by Obama) was the first to rule, striking down the Perkins executive order and finding that it threatened “the very foundation of our legal system.” Her ruling was followed March 28 by similar decisions in the Wilmer and Jenner cases.
Judge Richard Leon, (appointed by George W. Bush), held that the retaliatory nature of the Wilmer order was “clear from its face” and that there was “no doubt” it “chills speech and legal advocacy or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.” He also found that the retaliation would cause the firm “irreparable injury,” noting that “at least 21 of the firm’s 25 largest clients in 2024 have contracts with federal agencies.” With the firm handling more than “100 open government contracting matters involving various federal agencies,” Judge Leon concluded the order threatened the firm’s “very existence.”
Judge John Bates (also a Bush appointee) moved within hours of receiving Jenner’s complaint to stop enforcement of the executive order targeting that firm, specifically directing the government to rescind parts of the order designed to intimidate the firm’s clients.
The speed and unanimity with which these decisions were reached by federal judges appointed by both political parties is remarkable. All have found the constitutional violations obvious. There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court will find differently.
Lawyers are officers of the court. We take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law. Entering into a deal that has been held to violate the Constitution violates our oaths as lawyers. That alone should be reason for firms targeted by Trump to fight these orders and not cave as Paul Weiss and Skadden have done.
Beyond the clear legal duty to oppose an unconstitutional practice, why would any firm capitulate when it can fight and win? All of Trump’s potential targets have the ability and resources to defend themselves. Firms that have yet to be targeted have to ask themselves the question: When the law has dealt you a winning hand, why would you fold? Surely, they would not advise their own clients to fold in similar circumstances.
Contrast these legal victories with the badge of infamy that is being applied to Paul Weiss and Skadden. Behind the scenes, lawyers and in-house corporate counsel at many of America’s largest and most influential corporations are talking. Many are shocked and disgusted by the craven and cowardly way these two firms have responded, and how they have sold out their own principles and those of the legal profession. Most recently, over 1,650 alumni of the United States Department of Justice signed a statement opposing the executive branch attacking lawyers and law firms, and the number continues to grow.
This is a decision that goes to the core of an institution, that defines it in ways that will not be forgotten. For many years, Skadden was defined by the prestigious public interest fellowship that it pioneered decades ago and has used as a recruiting tool for decades. When the news broke that Skadden might be signing a deal, close to 400 former Skadden Fellows opposed any deal, and urged the firm to stand up for the rule of law, fight unjust actions by the government, and speak publicly about the critical role lawyers play in defending democracy.
More than the Skadden Fellowship has now been tarnished. The brand of both Skadden and Paul Weiss has been irreparably damaged in ways that may well impair their ability to recruit quality attorneys and clients in the years to come. The decision these firms have made is already being discussed in law school classrooms where Paul Weiss and Skadden compete with the rest of Big Law for legal talent. The attention focused on these two firms is withering and threatens to drag them down.
No matter how one looks at it—from a legal, ethical, or pragmatic business perspective—it is increasingly clear Paul Weiss and Skadden have made a grievous mistake for which they will pay a price much larger than the ransom they have agreed to pay Trump. The next firm to face an executive order would be wise to take a page from the Perkins-Wilmer-Jenner playbook. It is far better for them, and the entire profession, to fight than fold. If law firms stand up for themselves and their clients, the campaign of intimidation can be shut down.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
U.S. President Donald Trump’s political attack on the legal profession has entered a realm we have never seen before. The campaign of intimidation against firms that represent clients and causes he does not like shows no signs of stopping.
The battle is at a turning point. From the outside, it appears the profession is divided, with two firms caving in to Trump’s demands and three firms fighting in court. Trump has promoted his success in bringing two large firms to heel so that he is viewed as holding the upper hand and his power is enhanced.
That is not what is happening in court. The momentum has shifted, and the president has the losing hand. Lost amid the shock that accompanied the initial wave of punishing executive orders is that those fighting back are winning in court and those cutting deals with the White House are suffering irreparable damage behind the scenes where law firm reputations, clients, and the best legal talent are won and lost.
Firms that have yet to be targeted have to ask themselves the question: When the law has dealt you a winning hand, why would you fold?
It is critical right now that the next firms targeted choose to fight and not fold. To understand why, law firms should take a close look at what has been happening in the three cases where firms are standing and fighting, and the fallout facing the firms that have folded.
So far, Trump has issued five executive orders against leading law firms. Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps capitulated, agreeing to provide as much as $100 million in free legal services to support Trump initiatives. Three other large firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—are fighting in federal court, with remarkably quick and unanimous success.
Perkins, Wilmer, and Jenner all claimed that the retaliatory orders terminating all federal contracts with the firms, barring their employees from access to federal buildings, and subjecting the firms’ clients to onerous and punitive disclosure requirements constituted retaliation for protected “viewpoint” speech that violated the firms’ First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights.
Judge Beryl Howell (appointed by Obama) was the first to rule, striking down the Perkins executive order and finding that it threatened “the very foundation of our legal system.” Her ruling was followed March 28 by similar decisions in the Wilmer and Jenner cases.
Judge Richard Leon, (appointed by George W. Bush), held that the retaliatory nature of the Wilmer order was “clear from its face” and that there was “no doubt” it “chills speech and legal advocacy or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.” He also found that the retaliation would cause the firm “irreparable injury,” noting that “at least 21 of the firm’s 25 largest clients in 2024 have contracts with federal agencies.” With the firm handling more than “100 open government contracting matters involving various federal agencies,” Judge Leon concluded the order threatened the firm’s “very existence.”
Judge John Bates (also a Bush appointee) moved within hours of receiving Jenner’s complaint to stop enforcement of the executive order targeting that firm, specifically directing the government to rescind parts of the order designed to intimidate the firm’s clients.
The speed and unanimity with which these decisions were reached by federal judges appointed by both political parties is remarkable. All have found the constitutional violations obvious. There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court will find differently.
Lawyers are officers of the court. We take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law. Entering into a deal that has been held to violate the Constitution violates our oaths as lawyers. That alone should be reason for firms targeted by Trump to fight these orders and not cave as Paul Weiss and Skadden have done.
Beyond the clear legal duty to oppose an unconstitutional practice, why would any firm capitulate when it can fight and win? All of Trump’s potential targets have the ability and resources to defend themselves. Firms that have yet to be targeted have to ask themselves the question: When the law has dealt you a winning hand, why would you fold? Surely, they would not advise their own clients to fold in similar circumstances.
Contrast these legal victories with the badge of infamy that is being applied to Paul Weiss and Skadden. Behind the scenes, lawyers and in-house corporate counsel at many of America’s largest and most influential corporations are talking. Many are shocked and disgusted by the craven and cowardly way these two firms have responded, and how they have sold out their own principles and those of the legal profession. Most recently, over 1,650 alumni of the United States Department of Justice signed a statement opposing the executive branch attacking lawyers and law firms, and the number continues to grow.
This is a decision that goes to the core of an institution, that defines it in ways that will not be forgotten. For many years, Skadden was defined by the prestigious public interest fellowship that it pioneered decades ago and has used as a recruiting tool for decades. When the news broke that Skadden might be signing a deal, close to 400 former Skadden Fellows opposed any deal, and urged the firm to stand up for the rule of law, fight unjust actions by the government, and speak publicly about the critical role lawyers play in defending democracy.
More than the Skadden Fellowship has now been tarnished. The brand of both Skadden and Paul Weiss has been irreparably damaged in ways that may well impair their ability to recruit quality attorneys and clients in the years to come. The decision these firms have made is already being discussed in law school classrooms where Paul Weiss and Skadden compete with the rest of Big Law for legal talent. The attention focused on these two firms is withering and threatens to drag them down.
No matter how one looks at it—from a legal, ethical, or pragmatic business perspective—it is increasingly clear Paul Weiss and Skadden have made a grievous mistake for which they will pay a price much larger than the ransom they have agreed to pay Trump. The next firm to face an executive order would be wise to take a page from the Perkins-Wilmer-Jenner playbook. It is far better for them, and the entire profession, to fight than fold. If law firms stand up for themselves and their clients, the campaign of intimidation can be shut down.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s political attack on the legal profession has entered a realm we have never seen before. The campaign of intimidation against firms that represent clients and causes he does not like shows no signs of stopping.
The battle is at a turning point. From the outside, it appears the profession is divided, with two firms caving in to Trump’s demands and three firms fighting in court. Trump has promoted his success in bringing two large firms to heel so that he is viewed as holding the upper hand and his power is enhanced.
That is not what is happening in court. The momentum has shifted, and the president has the losing hand. Lost amid the shock that accompanied the initial wave of punishing executive orders is that those fighting back are winning in court and those cutting deals with the White House are suffering irreparable damage behind the scenes where law firm reputations, clients, and the best legal talent are won and lost.
Firms that have yet to be targeted have to ask themselves the question: When the law has dealt you a winning hand, why would you fold?
It is critical right now that the next firms targeted choose to fight and not fold. To understand why, law firms should take a close look at what has been happening in the three cases where firms are standing and fighting, and the fallout facing the firms that have folded.
So far, Trump has issued five executive orders against leading law firms. Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps capitulated, agreeing to provide as much as $100 million in free legal services to support Trump initiatives. Three other large firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—are fighting in federal court, with remarkably quick and unanimous success.
Perkins, Wilmer, and Jenner all claimed that the retaliatory orders terminating all federal contracts with the firms, barring their employees from access to federal buildings, and subjecting the firms’ clients to onerous and punitive disclosure requirements constituted retaliation for protected “viewpoint” speech that violated the firms’ First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights.
Judge Beryl Howell (appointed by Obama) was the first to rule, striking down the Perkins executive order and finding that it threatened “the very foundation of our legal system.” Her ruling was followed March 28 by similar decisions in the Wilmer and Jenner cases.
Judge Richard Leon, (appointed by George W. Bush), held that the retaliatory nature of the Wilmer order was “clear from its face” and that there was “no doubt” it “chills speech and legal advocacy or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.” He also found that the retaliation would cause the firm “irreparable injury,” noting that “at least 21 of the firm’s 25 largest clients in 2024 have contracts with federal agencies.” With the firm handling more than “100 open government contracting matters involving various federal agencies,” Judge Leon concluded the order threatened the firm’s “very existence.”
Judge John Bates (also a Bush appointee) moved within hours of receiving Jenner’s complaint to stop enforcement of the executive order targeting that firm, specifically directing the government to rescind parts of the order designed to intimidate the firm’s clients.
The speed and unanimity with which these decisions were reached by federal judges appointed by both political parties is remarkable. All have found the constitutional violations obvious. There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court will find differently.
Lawyers are officers of the court. We take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law. Entering into a deal that has been held to violate the Constitution violates our oaths as lawyers. That alone should be reason for firms targeted by Trump to fight these orders and not cave as Paul Weiss and Skadden have done.
Beyond the clear legal duty to oppose an unconstitutional practice, why would any firm capitulate when it can fight and win? All of Trump’s potential targets have the ability and resources to defend themselves. Firms that have yet to be targeted have to ask themselves the question: When the law has dealt you a winning hand, why would you fold? Surely, they would not advise their own clients to fold in similar circumstances.
Contrast these legal victories with the badge of infamy that is being applied to Paul Weiss and Skadden. Behind the scenes, lawyers and in-house corporate counsel at many of America’s largest and most influential corporations are talking. Many are shocked and disgusted by the craven and cowardly way these two firms have responded, and how they have sold out their own principles and those of the legal profession. Most recently, over 1,650 alumni of the United States Department of Justice signed a statement opposing the executive branch attacking lawyers and law firms, and the number continues to grow.
This is a decision that goes to the core of an institution, that defines it in ways that will not be forgotten. For many years, Skadden was defined by the prestigious public interest fellowship that it pioneered decades ago and has used as a recruiting tool for decades. When the news broke that Skadden might be signing a deal, close to 400 former Skadden Fellows opposed any deal, and urged the firm to stand up for the rule of law, fight unjust actions by the government, and speak publicly about the critical role lawyers play in defending democracy.
More than the Skadden Fellowship has now been tarnished. The brand of both Skadden and Paul Weiss has been irreparably damaged in ways that may well impair their ability to recruit quality attorneys and clients in the years to come. The decision these firms have made is already being discussed in law school classrooms where Paul Weiss and Skadden compete with the rest of Big Law for legal talent. The attention focused on these two firms is withering and threatens to drag them down.
No matter how one looks at it—from a legal, ethical, or pragmatic business perspective—it is increasingly clear Paul Weiss and Skadden have made a grievous mistake for which they will pay a price much larger than the ransom they have agreed to pay Trump. The next firm to face an executive order would be wise to take a page from the Perkins-Wilmer-Jenner playbook. It is far better for them, and the entire profession, to fight than fold. If law firms stand up for themselves and their clients, the campaign of intimidation can be shut down.
