Temporary Injunctions Gained By Firms Targeted in Trump’s Executive Orders

Tom Borman, LawFuel contributor

On March 28, 2025, two federal judges issued temporary injunctions against significant components of President Trump’s executive orders targeting Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The firms had filed lawsuits earlier that same day challenging the orders, which they claimed were unconstitutional and threatened their ability to represent clients.

U.S. District Judge John Bates, who handled the Jenner & Block case, described parts of Trump’s directive as “reprehensible” and “disturbing,” blocking sections that sought to cancel federal contracts for the firm’s clients and limit access for its attorneys to federal facilities and officials.

Similarly, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that Trump’s order regarding WilmerHale was retaliatory and approved the firm’s request to block parts of the directive that restricted its access to U.S. government facilities and officials.

Background of the Executive Orders

Trump has targeted five major law firms with executive orders since February 2025, being Covington & Burling on February 25, Perkins Coie on March 6, Paul Weiss on March 14, Jenner & Block on March 25, and WilmerHale on March 27.

The orders imposed severe penalties, including suspension of security clearances for the firms’ lawyers, cancellation of federal contracts, restrictions on access to federal buildings, and prohibition of communication between federal employees and these firms.

The executive order against Jenner & Block cited the firm’s previous employment of Andrew Weissmann, who was involved in former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s potential ties to Russia.

Similarly, the order targeting WilmerHale pointed to the firm’s connection with Mueller, who had worked at the firm before and after serving as special counsel.

The Lawsuits

In their lawsuits, both firms argued that Trump’s orders violated their constitutional rights.

Jenner & Block contended that the order was “an unconstitutional threat to the firm and the legal system itself,” seeking to “punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate”.

WilmerHale, represented by veteran Supreme Court lawyer Paul Clement, (pictured above) argued that “The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale, its employees, and its clients to speak freely, petition the courts and other government institutions, and associate with the counsel of their choice without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials”.

Jenner & Block noted that more than 40 percent of its revenue over the last five years had come from government contractors, subcontractors, or affiliates, expressing concern that these relationships could be jeopardized due to the executive order.

While Jenner & Block and WilmerHale chose to fight the executive orders in court, other firms targeted by Trump have taken different approaches.

Paul Weiss reached an agreement with the White House to nullify a similar executive order by committing to $40 million in pro bono legal services for causes supported by the Trump administration.

Skadden Arps negotiated a deal with the Trump administration, agreeing to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for causes supported by the president. Lawyers have been divided, with some attorneys willing to challenge Trump’s criticisms while others opt for negotiation and compromise.

Judicial Rulings

The judges’ rulings on March 28 marked the third time that federal judges have criticized the Trump administration’s actions against law firms.

Judge Bates found that the language in Trump’s order expressing a desire to penalize Jenner & Block for its pro bono work on causes the president opposes was “disturbing” and “troubling”.

Judge Leon’s ruling said, “There is no question that this retaliatory action stifles speech and legal advocacy, which constitutes a constitutional injury”. But he chose not to intervene in the White House’s decision to revoke security clearances of firm lawyers, asserting that such decisions fall under the purview of the executive branch.

Therulings follow a similar decision earlier in March when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked much of the executive order against Perkins Coie, saying it was likely unconstitutional.