A federal judge has blocked a controversial executive order from former President Donald Trump that took aim at the high-profile law firm WilmerHale. The decision is being hailed as a major win for legal independence and constitutional protections, especially in an era where political retaliation has increasingly spilled over into professional spaces.
What Was Trump’s Order About?
Back in March 2025, Trump signed an executive order that directly targeted WilmerHale. The order claimed the firm posed a “national security risk” and moved to suspend security clearances for its employees. It also barred the firm from working with several federal agencies and directed a full review of any existing government contracts.
Why the crackdown? WilmerHale has long been associated with prominent legal work, including some of its former attorneys serving on Robert Mueller’s special counsel team during the Russia investigation. Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration over the investigation and those involved in it.
The order also criticized WilmerHale for its diversity and inclusion initiatives—something that’s become a recurring theme in Trump’s second term.
How the Firm Fought Back
WilmerHale didn’t stay quiet. They filed a lawsuit shortly after the order was announced, arguing that the move was not only politically motivated but also unconstitutional. They brought on former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement to lead their legal team.
Their main argument? The government cannot punish private entities—especially law firms—for who they represent or what their lawyers have done in the past. That kind of retaliation, they said, violates basic First Amendment rights.
Judge’s Decision: A Clear Message
On May 27, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon sided with WilmerHale. In his ruling, he wrote that the executive order was “retaliatory” and a clear violation of constitutional protections, especially freedom of speech and association.
Judge Leon emphasized that lawyers must be able to represent clients—even unpopular ones—without fear of punishment from the government. He warned that the order set a dangerous precedent, potentially threatening the independence of the legal system itself.
Not the First Time
This isn’t the first time Trump has gone after law firms. Similar executive orders were issued against Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, both of which also had connections to investigations or political issues Trump opposed.
Courts struck those down too, saying presidents cannot use executive power to target legal professionals for doing their jobs.
Some firms, like Skadden and Milbank, chose to settle quietly. They agreed to take on certain pro bono work in exchange for having the executive orders against them withdrawn.
The Administration’s Reaction
Following the decision, Trump’s team defended the order, arguing that the president has the authority to make decisions about security clearances and who can work with the federal government.
A spokesperson said the ruling “weakens the president’s ability to protect national interests,” and added that an appeal is still on the table.
WilmerHale Responds
WilmerHale released a statement shortly after the decision came down. The firm praised the ruling as a major win for the legal profession and the rule of law.
“This case was never about politics—it was about protecting the right to do our jobs without fear,” the firm said. “We’re proud to stand up for those principles.”
What This Means Going Forward
The ruling sends a strong message: even the president cannot use his power to go after legal professionals for political reasons. With multiple court defeats now behind him on this front, Trump’s efforts to reshape the legal landscape through executive orders are facing serious limits.
For law firms and lawyers across the country, the decision offers reassurance that advocacy—no matter how controversial—is still protected by the Constitution.
