On March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block,” targeting Jenner & Block, a prominent law firm. This order restricts Jenner employees from accessing federal government buildings, bars government employees from official engagement with Jenner personnel, and mandates government contractors disclose any business conducted with Jenner. Similar executive orders have also been directed at other major law firms, such as Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, both of which have legally challenged these orders and obtained temporary restraining orders from federal courts. Jenner itself, represented by Cooley, swiftly filed a lawsuit, successfully achieving a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Jenner & Block maintains that it has historically advocated for its clients against unlawful government actions and remains committed to opposing what it sees as unconstitutional coercion. Other law firms have taken a different route, reaching agreements to provide millions of dollars of pro bono work to government-supported initiatives, thereby attempting to avoid similar executive orders. These settlements raise critical questions regarding the independence of private law firms from governmental influence and interference.
The author strongly argues that these executive orders are unconstitutional violations of fundamental rights. Specifically, the First Amendment rights of free speech, petition, and association are under threat. By targeting Jenner’s legal advocacy—which includes representation of immigrants, transgender individuals, and figures politically opposed to President Trump—the government infringes on the rights to free speech and petition. Legal advocacy is explicitly protected under the First Amendment, and government retaliation against law firms for engaging in this advocacy is unconstitutional.
Additionally, these executive orders discriminate based on viewpoint, another constitutional violation. Jenner has been singled out due to its advocacy in contentious areas of social policy, demonstrating the government’s intent to punish firms advocating perspectives opposed by the administration. The author highlights a specific example involving former Jenner partner Andrew Weissmann, who has been openly critical of Trump. The administration’s attempt to punish Jenner due to its past association with Weissmann further exemplifies unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.
The executive orders also infringe upon the due-process protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Jenner & Block was neither provided notice nor given a hearing before the punitive measures were imposed, violating basic procedural rights. Furthermore, the vague nature of the orders creates uncertainty for all law firms, as no clear guidelines or advance notice exists regarding what types of legal representations or associations might trigger future orders.
These executive orders severely undermine clients’ rights to legal representation. Without the temporary restraining orders, Jenner would be barred from effectively representing its clients in interactions with the government, a violation of due-process rights. The mandated disclosure of client associations also intrudes upon attorney-client privilege, further undermining fundamental rights. In criminal cases, these restrictions additionally violate the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel of one’s choice.
The author emphasizes the chilling effect these executive orders have on law firms’ willingness to represent clients with unpopular or politically sensitive views. They effectively deter law firms from taking cases that might trigger governmental retaliation, leaving such clients unable to obtain representation even for meritorious claims. This creates an imbalance in the judicial system, allowing only litigants whose views align with the government’s to have robust legal representation, thus distorting the legal landscape.
The settlements that some law firms have reached with the government further exacerbate these issues. When firms commit substantial resources to government-approved initiatives, they compromise their independence and implicitly grant the government influence over their decision-making processes. This undermines the principle of an independent private sector, critical for a free society. Law firms must remain completely independent from governmental control to uphold justice effectively.
Moreover, the author criticizes these settlements for creating inherent conflicts of interest. Law firms that settle with the government become implicitly incentivized to avoid any actions that might jeopardize their fragile agreements, thus compromising the zeal with which they can advocate for clients. This compromise extends beyond cases directly involving the government, affecting all legal matters where the government has an indirect interest or influence.
The author calls upon law firms to resist these executive orders by pursuing legal challenges rather than settling. Such lawsuits are necessary not only to uphold constitutional rights but also to maintain the integrity of the justice system. History provides examples of courageous litigants who have successfully defended constitutional rights despite considerable adversity, such as the plaintiffs in landmark cases like West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Tinker v. Des Moines. Today’s law firms, which possess significantly greater resources and influence, should likewise stand firm.
Settling with the government reflects a deeply cynical view, both of law firms’ own clients and the justice system. Firms that settle imply that clients prefer firms that capitulate to government coercion rather than standing firm on principle. Additionally, these settlements signal skepticism towards the judiciary’s ability to effectively remedy constitutional wrongs, even though courts have consistently provided preliminary relief against these executive orders.
The author concludes by strongly advocating for continued legal challenges against the executive orders, emphasizing optimism and faith in the American justice system. Choosing litigation demonstrates confidence in the courts’ ability to correct governmental overreach and uphold constitutional rights. In contrast, settlements signal defeatism, weakening public confidence in the rule of law and potentially emboldening further government overreach. Therefore, the author passionately urges all law firms facing similar pressures to pursue justice in court rather than capitulate, thereby preserving the independence necessary for the effective functioning of the legal system and the protection of fundamental constitutional rights.
Read more here: