Two prominent law firms—Perkins Coie and WilmerHale—will ask federal judges this week to permanently block President Trump’s executive orders that suspended attorney security clearances, restricted access to federal facilities, and terminated government contracts as retaliation for their legal work.
Both firms contend that the March orders are unconstitutional punishments targeting lawyers for representing clients at odds with the administration’s political agenda. A federal court paused key provisions last month; this week’s hearings aim to strike down the orders in full. Jenner & Block plans a similar challenge next week.
In filings ahead of Wednesday’s arguments, Perkins Coie emphasized that upholding the orders would “set a grave precedent” by allowing elected leaders to penalize attorneys “for representing clients who oppose their political agendas.”
These executive actions form part of a broader campaign by the White House to leverage legal and contractual pressures against perceived adversaries. Some targeted firms have litigated; others—like Paul Weiss—negotiated settlements that led to rescinded orders. A half‑dozen additional firms, including Skadden and Kirkland & Ellis, have reached agreements to provide pro bono services in exchange for dropped sanctions.
Perkins Coie’s order cited its representation of Hillary Clinton in 2016, while WilmerHale’s referenced former partner Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. The cases will test the constitutional limits of executive power over the legal profession.
