In a pair of Washington courtrooms, two heavyweight law firms are going head-to-head with Donald Trump’sWhite House, asking judges to slam the door shut—permanently—on executive orders they say were designed to punish them for the clients they chose and the cases they took.
Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, two of the nation’s legal juggernauts, argued this week that Trump’s executive orders targeting them were not only unconstitutional, but blatantly retaliatory. Their attorneys weren’t just asking for relief—they were calling for a full stop, a permanent block to what they say is a dangerous abuse of executive power.
Both judges overseeing the cases—Beryl Howell and Richard Leon—seemed skeptical of the administration’s defense. Howell zeroed in on the administration’s claim that national security justified the orders, calling the withdrawal of an identical order against Paul Weiss (after the firm struck a deal with Trump) the “clearest evidence” that national security was never the real issue.
Meanwhile, Leon was unpersuaded by arguments from a Justice Department attorney who insisted the orders weren’t punitive. “The mere threat that a firm might not be able to do some legal business is indeed punishment,” Leon said, signaling that he’s not buying the administration’s narrative.
The executive orders at the heart of the dispute barred attorneys from the targeted firms from entering federal buildings and cut off access to lucrative government contracts—moves the firms say were meant to chill opposition and silence dissent.
Perkins Coie’s lawyer, Dane Butswinkas, told the court the order was clear-cut retaliation for representing clients Trump didn’t like. Over in Leon’s courtroom, WilmerHale’s attorney Paul Clement said the same thing, but sharper: the order was “crystal clear” retaliation, unconstitutional “root and branch,” and a “grave threat to the rule of law.”
This courtroom saga is unfolding amid a broader pattern. At least four federal judges have temporarily halted similar Trump-issued orders targeting law firms, suggesting a judicial consensus may be forming against the legality of the measures.
Behind the scenes, some firms—including Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins, and Kirkland & Ellis—have already made deals with Trump’s team to avoid the same fate. These arrangements reportedly included pledges of nearly $1 billion in free legal services and other concessions. Details remain murky, but what’s clear is that not everyone was willing to bend the knee.
The fight has ignited a groundswell of support from the legal community. Hundreds of firms, thousands of attorneys, and numerous bar associations have lined up behind the plaintiffs, calling the orders a naked attempt to weaponize presidential power against the legal profession itself.
And not everyone inside the deal-making firms is on board—several lawyers have resigned in protest, unwilling to be part of what they see as a Faustian bargain.
Decisions from the judges are expected in the coming weeks. But for now, the message in both courtrooms was unmistakable: the rule of law doesn’t bow easily—even when the pressure is coming from the top.
