For Immediate Release: June 5, 2025
Authoritarian Overreach: Courts Reject Trump’s Retaliatory War on Law Firms, Free Speech, and Separation of Powers
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two more federal judges have struck down President Trump’s executive orders that targeted law firms perceived as political opponents.
The rulings, in favor of Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, block enforcement of executive orders aimed at punishing legal advocacy by Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. One judge emphasized that “the cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting.” Another judge warned that the executive orders were “targeting law firms that, in one way or another, did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy.”
In a sharply worded opinion, the judge declared: “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.” The judge also found that the executive order “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 violates the Constitution.”
In challenging the executive orders, The Rutherford Institute joined a broad coalition of civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, ACLU of DC, Cato Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, FIRE, the Institute for Justice, the Knight First Amendment Institute, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, and the Society for the Rule of Law. The coalition filed amicus briefs in a series of cases—including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey—arguing that the executive orders violate the separation of powers and unconstitutionally infringe on the rights to free speech, advocacy, and due process.
|
