Judge Strikes Down Trump Order Targeting Jenner & Block (2)

A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block, ruling that it is an unconstitutional abuse of the president’s power.

Trump violated the firm’s First Amendment rights by retaliating against Jenner for its work in court and ties to lawyers the president perceives as enemies, said Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The executive order and similar moves against other firms also send “a subtle but perhaps more pernicious” message to lawyers across the country, according to Bates.

“This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers.”

The ruling marks the latest loss for Trump’s campaign against law firms. A federal judge tossed out an executive order targeting Perkins Coie on May 2, calling it an unconstitutional violation of clients’ right to pick their own counsel and of the firm’s due process protections.

Trump’s March 25 order against Jenner & Block instructed federal agencies to terminate contracts involving the firm and to pull security clearances for its lawyers. The order criticized former partner Andrew Weissmann, who worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Jenner in its oral argument April 28 said the directive was a retaliation against the firm and violated a First Amendment right to represent clients of its choosing. The firm also said the order violated constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.

“Our decision to fight the executive order in court is rooted in Jenner & Block’s history and values: we fiercely advocate for our clients under all circumstances,” the firm said in a statement following the decision. “This ruling demonstrates the importance of lawyers standing firm on behalf of clients and for the law.”

The Trump administration didn’t immediately say whether it would appeal the ruling.

“The decision to grant any individual access to this nation’s secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said via email. “Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President’s clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary’s authority.”

Nine other major law firms, including Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, have settled with Trump rather than face or fight such orders. Those law firms have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in “pro bono” legal services that are agreeable to the Trump administration, among other concessions.

“Usually, figuring out whether retaliation would chill a speaker of ordinary firmness—and ascertaining just how much a speaker would have to trim her advocacy to avoid reprisal—requires some guesswork,” Bates said. “Not here. The serial executive orders targeting law firms have produced something of an organic experiment, control group and all, for how firms react to the orders and how they might escape them.”

The judge rejected the administration’s claim that Jenner poses a national security threat. He cited Trump’s deal with Paul Weiss, in which the president revoked a similar order against the Wall Street law firm after it pledged $40 million in free legal work and committed to auditing its hiring practices.

“If any doubt remains as to the sincerity of the invocation of national security, take a look at the Paul Weiss saga,” Bates said.

The case is Jenner & Block v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.D.C., 1:25-cv-00916, 5/23/25