Two federal judges have slammed the brakes on Donald Trump’s escalating war with major U.S. law firms, temporarily blocking portions of executive orders aimed at WilmerHale and Jenner & Block. The rulings arrived the same day that another legal heavyweight, Skadden Arps, took a more pragmatic route—opting to settle with the administration rather than fight it out in court.
In a sharply worded rebuke, U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington described Trump’s order targeting Jenner & Block as “reprehensible” and “disturbing,” particularly for singling out the firm over its pro bono work with transgender individuals and immigrants. Bates moved to block sections of the order that would have barred the firm’s lawyers from federal buildings and jeopardized contracts held by its clients. He warned that the sweeping nature of the directive “threatens the existence of the firm.”
Over in a separate courtroom, Judge Richard Leon granted similar relief to WilmerHale, calling Trump’s actions “retaliatory.” While he allowed the suspension of security clearances to stand, he put a halt to other parts of the executive order that restricted the firm’s access to federal officials and buildings.
The twin rulings came just hours after both law firms filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s actions, alleging violations of free speech and due process. Jenner & Block framed the orders as political punishment for the firm’s opposition to Trump’s agenda, while WilmerHale argued the moves would damage its business and clients.
“The court has agreed that this is an unconstitutional executive order holding no legal weight,” Jenner & Block said after the ruling. WilmerHale called the judicial intervention a necessary step to preserve its clients’ right to legal representation.
Trump’s executive order targeting Jenner didn’t mince words—accusing the firm of subversion, with thinly veiled nods to its past ties to figures involved in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. The White House, doubling down on the narrative, claimed firms like Jenner and WilmerHale were part of an orchestrated effort to “weaponize the legal process” against political adversaries.
In contrast to the legal resistance from Jenner and WilmerHale, Skadden Arps chose negotiation over litigation. The firm agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for causes aligned with the administration, including veterans’ issues. Skadden also pledged to uphold what Trump described as “merit-based” hiring practices. Executive Partner Jeremy London said the firm engaged proactively “in the interests of clients, employees, and the firm.”
This isn’t Trump’s first run-in with Big Law. Earlier in March, Judge Beryl Howell temporarily halted another executive order aimed at Perkins Coie, citing constitutional overreach. That order, like the ones now under fire, pointed fingers at firms connected to Trump-era investigations.
Meanwhile, another deal had already been cut behind closed doors. Paul Weiss agreed to roll back a similar executive order in exchange for dedicating $40 million in legal services to administration-approved causes.
Trump’s orders go beyond symbolic slaps—they seek to cut off federal contract ties between the government and firms’ clients, a potentially devastating financial blow. Jenner claims over 40% of its revenue is linked to government contractors, with several clients reportedly reassessing their relationships amid the turmoil.
“This will inevitably cause extensive, lasting damage,” WilmerHale warned in its complaint.
As the courtroom battles heat up and deals continue behind closed doors, one thing is clear: Trump’s crusade against law firms he deems unfriendly has triggered a high-stakes collision between the executive branch and the legal profession. Whether more firms will fight or fold remains to be seen—but the chill across the bar is palpable.
