Trump Punished Lawyers for Their Clients. Four Judges Struck His Orders Down

Select a Section to Explore

Chapter 1 — Punish the Lawyers, Reach Their Clients

Chapter 2 — A Clearance Cut Off a Lawyer and His Clients

Chapter 3 — Presidential Discretion Does Not Excuse Retaliation

1 · Punish the Lawyers, Reach Their Clients

1 · Punish the Lawyers, Reach Their Clients — select a subtopic

1.1 — The President Made Legal Representation a Government Target

1.2 — Four Judges Rejected the Orders

1.3 — Blocking the Orders Did Not Undo the Damage

1 · Punish the Lawyers, Reach Their Clients

1.1 · Punish the Lawyers, Reach Their Clients

The President Made Legal Representation a Government Target

Trump issued orders punishing law firms for clients they represented and lawyers they hired. Four federal judges ruled the firm orders unconstitutional. His sanctions threatened the firms' ability to serve clients, including companies with federal contracts.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Memorandum Opinion, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-716 (D.D.C. May 2, 2025) (Howell, J.)

[2]Memorandum Opinion, Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-916 (D.D.C. May 23, 2025) (Bates, J.)

[3]Memorandum Opinion, WilmerHale v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-917 (D.D.C. 2025) (Leon, J.)

[4]Memorandum Opinion, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-1107 (D.D.C. June 27, 2025) (AliKhan, J.), ECF No. 206

[5]Executive Order 14230, "Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP," 90 Fed. Reg. 11781 (Mar. 14, 2025)

[6]Executive Order 14246, "Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block," 90 Fed. Reg. 13997 (2025)

[7]Memorandum Opinion and Order, Zaid v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-01365 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2025) (Ali, J.), ECF No. 52

1.2 · Punish the Lawyers, Reach Their Clients

Four Judges Rejected the Orders

Judges Howell, Bates, Leon and AliKhan struck down the orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. All four found unconstitutional retaliation and permanently blocked the sanctions. The rulings protected legal advocacy from presidential punishment.

Memorandum Opinion, Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice

It casts a chill over the whole of the legal profession, leaving lawyers around the country weighing the necessity of vigorous representation against the peril of crossing the federal government.

Judge John D. Bates, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · May 23, 2025

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Memorandum Opinion, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-716 (D.D.C. May 2, 2025) (Howell, J.)

[2]Memorandum Opinion, Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-916 (D.D.C. May 23, 2025) (Bates, J.)

[3]Memorandum Opinion, WilmerHale v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-917 (D.D.C. 2025) (Leon, J.)

[4]Memorandum Opinion, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-1107 (D.D.C. June 27, 2025) (AliKhan, J.), ECF No. 206

1.3 · Punish the Lawyers, Reach Their Clients

Blocking the Orders Did Not Undo the Damage

Perkins Coie's client of 35 years moved two pending matters to other counsel, while WilmerHale kept losing clients after a temporary injunction. Paul, Weiss pledged $40 million in free legal work and agreed to political neutrality in client selection and attorney hiring; Trump revoked its order. Eight other firms negotiated deals to avoid similar orders, pledging hundreds of millions in legal work on initiatives Trump supported.

Memorandum Opinion, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, p. 61

And I agree, they’ve done nothing wrong. But what the hell, they’ve given me a lot of money considering they’ve done nothing wrong.

President Donald J. Trump, as reproduced in Judge Howell's opinion · April 8, 2025

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Memorandum Opinion, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-716 (D.D.C. May 2, 2025) (Howell, J.)

[3]Memorandum Opinion, WilmerHale v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-917 (D.D.C. 2025) (Leon, J.)

[4]Memorandum Opinion, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-1107 (D.D.C. June 27, 2025) (AliKhan, J.), ECF No. 206

2 · A Clearance Cut Off a Lawyer and His Clients

2 · A Clearance Cut Off a Lawyer and His Clients — select a subtopic

2.1 — Mark Zaid Lost Access to Classified Cases

2.2 — Covington's Lawyers Were Singled Out for Their Client

2 · A Clearance Cut Off a Lawyer and His Clients

2.1 · A Clearance Cut Off a Lawyer and His Clients

Mark Zaid Lost Access to Classified Cases

Trump's memorandum directed agencies to revoke Mark Zaid's clearance. Judge Amir Ali found, on a preliminary record, that Zaid's clients were the sole reason for the revocation. The loss of classified access prevented him from fully representing clients challenging the government.

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Zaid v. Executive Office of the President

Based on the preliminary injunction record, the court finds that Zaid’s representation of whistleblowers and other clients adverse to the government was the sole reason for summarily revoking his security clearance.

Judge Amir H. Ali, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · December 23, 2025

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[7]Memorandum Opinion and Order, Zaid v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-01365 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2025) (Ali, J.), ECF No. 52

[8]Presidential Memorandum, "Rescinding Security Clearances and Access to Classified Information from Specified Individuals" (Mar. 22, 2025)

[9]ACLU of DC, Zaid v. Executive Office of the President, appellate amicus case page (Mar. 27, 2026)

[10]Ryan Tarinelli, Roll Call, Appeals court questions Trump executive orders targeting law firms (May 14, 2026)

2.2 · A Clearance Cut Off a Lawyer and His Clients

Covington's Lawyers Were Singled Out for Their Client

Trump also directed a clearance suspension for Peter Koski and other Covington & Burling lawyers who had assisted Jack Smith. Smith had investigated allegations that Trump interfered with the transfer of power after the 2020 election and retained classified information after leaving office. Trump's memorandum singled out Covington lawyers for assisting him. It also directed a review of government contracts with the firm.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Memorandum Opinion, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-716 (D.D.C. May 2, 2025) (Howell, J.)

[11]Presidential Memorandum, "Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts" (Feb. 25, 2025)

3 · Presidential Discretion Does Not Excuse Retaliation

3 · Presidential Discretion Does Not Excuse Retaliation — select a subtopic

3.1 — The Defense, and the Limits the Courts Enforced

3.2 — Why This Is a Case Against Trump

3 · Presidential Discretion Does Not Excuse Retaliation

3.1 · Presidential Discretion Does Not Excuse Retaliation

The Defense, and the Limits the Courts Enforced

The government argues that the President controls security clearances, federal contracting and agency investigations. The Supreme Court gives the Executive broad discretion over clearance decisions. The district judges distinguished security judgments from blanket punishment for protected advocacy. The judges rejected the government's security and discrimination justifications for the retaliation.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Memorandum Opinion, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-716 (D.D.C. May 2, 2025) (Howell, J.)

[2]Memorandum Opinion, Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-916 (D.D.C. May 23, 2025) (Bates, J.)

[3]Memorandum Opinion, WilmerHale v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-917 (D.D.C. 2025) (Leon, J.)

[4]Memorandum Opinion, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-1107 (D.D.C. June 27, 2025) (AliKhan, J.), ECF No. 206

[5]Executive Order 14230, "Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP," 90 Fed. Reg. 11781 (Mar. 14, 2025)

[6]Executive Order 14246, "Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block," 90 Fed. Reg. 13997 (2025)

[7]Memorandum Opinion and Order, Zaid v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-01365 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2025) (Ali, J.), ECF No. 52

[10]Ryan Tarinelli, Roll Call, Appeals court questions Trump executive orders targeting law firms (May 14, 2026)

[12]Combined Opening Brief for Government Appellants, Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ et al., Nos. 25-5241 et al. (D.C. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), Doc. 2162591

[13]Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

[14]Notice of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-1107 (D.D.C. July 1, 2025), ECF No. 208-1

[15]Defendants' Status Report, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-1107 (D.D.C. July 1, 2025), ECF No. 208

[16]Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Consolidated Appeals, Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ et al., Nos. 25-5241, 25-5265, 25-5277, 25-5310 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 2, 2026)

[17]Perkins Coie, Filings & Milestones in Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ (accessed Oct. 10, 2026)

[18]Mike Scarcella and David Thomas, Reuters, Federal court questions Trump's push to punish major law firms (May 14, 2026), syndicated by Missouri Lawyers Media

3.2 · Presidential Discretion Does Not Excuse Retaliation

Why This Is a Case Against Trump

Trump personally issued the orders and clearance directives. Four judges blocked the firm sanctions, but their rulings could not erase lost client work. Hamilton described impeachable misconduct as abuse or violation of public trust. Using the presidency to punish legal representation is an abuse of public trust.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Memorandum Opinion, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-716 (D.D.C. May 2, 2025) (Howell, J.)

[2]Memorandum Opinion, Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-916 (D.D.C. May 23, 2025) (Bates, J.)

[3]Memorandum Opinion, WilmerHale v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-917 (D.D.C. 2025) (Leon, J.)

[4]Memorandum Opinion, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-cv-1107 (D.D.C. June 27, 2025) (AliKhan, J.), ECF No. 206

[5]Executive Order 14230, "Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP," 90 Fed. Reg. 11781 (Mar. 14, 2025)

[6]Executive Order 14246, "Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block," 90 Fed. Reg. 13997 (2025)

[7]Memorandum Opinion and Order, Zaid v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-01365 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2025) (Ali, J.), ECF No. 52

[8]Presidential Memorandum, "Rescinding Security Clearances and Access to Classified Information from Specified Individuals" (Mar. 22, 2025)

[10]Ryan Tarinelli, Roll Call, Appeals court questions Trump executive orders targeting law firms (May 14, 2026)

[11]Presidential Memorandum, "Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts" (Feb. 25, 2025)