Judges Stand With Law Firms (and EFF) Against Trump’s Executive Orders

“Pernicious.”

“Unprecedented... cringe-worthy.”

“Egregious.”

“Shocking.” 

These are just some of the words that federal judges used in recent weeks to describe President Trump’s politically motivated and vindictive executive orders targeting law firms that have employed people or represented clients or causes he doesn’t like. 

But our favorite word by far is “unconstitutional.” 

EFF was one of the very first legal organizations to publicly come out in support of Perkins Coie when it became the first law firm to challenge the legality of President Trump’s executive order targeting it. Since then, EFF has joined four amicus briefs in support of targeted law firms, and in all four cases, judges from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia have indicated they’re having none of it. Three have issued permanent injunctions deeming the executive orders null and void, and the fourth seems to be headed in that same direction. 

Trump issued his EO against Perkins Coie on March 6. In a May 2 opinion finding the order unconstitutional and issuing a permanent injunction, Senior Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote:  

“By its terms, this Order stigmatizes and penalizes a particular law firm and its employees—from its partners to its associate attorneys, secretaries, and mailroom attendants—due to the Firm’s representation, both in the past and currently, of clients pursuing claims and taking positions with which the current President disagrees, as well as the Firm’s own speech,” Howell wrote. “In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ EO 14230 takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.” 

“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, … is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion.’” 

 Trump issued a similar EO against Jenner & Block on March 25. In a May 23 opinion also finding the order unconstitutional and issuing a permanent injunction, Senior Judge John D. Bates wrote: 

“This order—which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block—makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work—and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward—violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not ‘use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’ Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024). More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy. 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. It thus