Legal Eagles Soar: Cooley and Clement & Murphy Champion Law Firms Against Trump Executive Orders
the legal world witnessed a dramatic showdown in late march 2025, as two prominent law firms, jenner & block and wilmerhale, found themselves targeted by executive orders (eos) from the trump administration. these actions, unprecedented in their direct targeting of am law 100 firms, sparked immediate legal challenges and ignited a broader debate about the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession.
on tuesday, march 25, 2025, jenner & block was the first to be “eo’d,” followed by wilmerhale just two days later on march 27. both firms swiftly responded,filing lawsuits on march 28 in the u.s.district court for the district of columbia (d.d.c.), alleging the unconstitutionality of the executive orders.jenner & block turned to cooley, another am law 100 firm, for representation. the cooley team, lead by michael attanasio, a seasoned commercial litigator and former global chair of cooley’s litigation department, included david mills, kristine forderer, and john bostic. attanasio’s background at the public integrity section of the u.s. department of justice (doj) provided valuable insight into the government’s legal strategies.
wilmerhale, conversely, enlisted the services of paul clement, a former u.s. solicitor general under george w. bush and a widely respected supreme court and appellate advocate. bloomberg law described clement as “a lebron james of lawyers,” highlighting his remarkable legal skills and reputation. clement was joined by erin murphy, his partner at clement & murphy, a fellow former scotus clerk, and an alum of the u.s.solicitor general’s office.
clement’s involvement was notably significant given his history of defending controversial clients and causes. he had previously left king & spalding in 2011 after representing the defense of marriage act, and kirkland & ellis in 2022 after advocating for second amendment rights. as ed whelan noted, paul clement is now “demonstrat[ing] his courage and integrity by standing up for biglaw—even though biglaw didn’t have the courage and integrity to stand up for him.”
cooley and clement & murphy acted swiftly, seeking temporary restraining orders (tros) to halt the executive orders. on friday, march 28, judges john bates and richard leon granted the tros, providing immediate relief to jenner & block and wilmerhale, respectively. judge beryl howell had previously issued a similar tro in the perkins coie case. the fact that these orders were issued by judges with diverse ideological backgrounds—two bush appointees (judges bates and leon) and one obama appointee (judge howell)—underscored the broad consensus that the executive orders were legally questionable.
the swift legal victories for jenner & block and wilmerhale were a testament to the skill and dedication of their legal teams. the cases also highlighted the importance of lawyers standing up for the rule of law, even when it means challenging powerful government entities.
beyond the Courtroom: a Broader Legal Landscape
the legal community’s response to the executive orders extended beyond the courtroom. several biglaw associates, including rachel cohen of skadden and ramon ryan of orrick, publicly voiced their concerns. brenna frey resigned from skadden, announcing her departure in a linkedin post that quickly went viral. gilbert orbea, on his last day at wilmerhale, sent a firmwide email urging his colleagues to “fight back” and “speak up,” also posting his message on linkedin. he later expressed his pride in jenner and wilmer for challenging the executive orders, stating he was “beyond proud of jenner and wilmer for standing up to these unconstitutional executive orders.”
these actions reflect a growing sense of obligation among lawyers to defend democratic principles and challenge government overreach. the cases involving jenner & block and wilmerhale serve as a reminder that the legal profession plays a crucial role in safeguarding the constitution and protecting the rights of all citizens.other Legal news
former supreme court advocate tom goldstein’s challenge to pretrial release conditions involving electronic device monitoring was unsuccessful. his federal criminal trial is scheduled for january 12, 2026. texas ip litigator william p.ramey iii faced sanctions from three different courts in a single week.
lauren krasnoff and david oscar markus of markus/moss, along with andrew feldman and kyra harkins of the feldman law firm, secured an acquittal for their clients in a $36 million healthcare fraud case in federal court (s.d. fla.).
trent mccotter of boyden gray pllc made his supreme court debut in fcc v. consumers’ research, a case concerning the nondelegation doctrine.
peter bruland, an associate from sidley austin, is set to argue before the supreme court in rivers v. guerrero, a case about inmates’ ability to amend habeas filings.
practical Applications and Insights
the legal battles surrounding the trump administration’s executive orders offer several key takeaways for legal professionals and the public:
the importance of self-reliant legal representation: the willingness of cooley and clement & murphy to represent jenner & block and wilmerhale demonstrates the crucial role of independent legal counsel in challenging government actions.
the power of collective action: the public statements and actions of biglaw associates highlight the importance of individual lawyers speaking out against injustice and advocating for the rule of law.
the enduring relevance of constitutional principles: the legal challenges to the executive orders underscore the importance of upholding constitutional principles, such as due process and equal protection, in the face of government overreach.
these cases serve as a reminder that the legal profession has a vital role to play in safeguarding democracy and protecting the rights of all citizens. by standing up for the rule of law, lawyers can help ensure that the government remains accountable and that the constitution is upheld.D.C. Circuit Judges Face Heavy Workload Amidst High-Profile Trump Administration Cases
Washington, D.C. – Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Justin Walker of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals are currently navigating a demanding period, handling a significant number of high-stakes cases involving the trump administration. The trio’s intense workload stems from their current assignment as the “special panel,” a rotating group of three judges randomly selected to address emergency motions and other urgent matters within the D.C. Circuit.This panel functions similarly to what other circuits frequently enough refer to as a “motions panel.”
The D.C. Circuit’s unique position in the legal landscape contributes to the panel’s heavy caseload. Many lawsuits against the Trump administration are initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.). Subsequent appeals from these cases then proceed to the D.C. Circuit, frequently enough landing before the special panel due to the urgency of the matters involved.
The judges’ recent decisions have drawn national attention,highlighting the critical role the judiciary plays in checking executive power. Several cases underscore the panel’s demanding workload:
Dellinger v.Bessent (March 10): The panel unanimously granted emergency relief to the Trump administration, allowing the removal of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel to proceed.
J.G.G.v. Trump (March 26): This case concerns the administration’s attempt to deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador under the Alien enemies Act. Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg of the D.D.C. initially denied the administration’s motion to vacate temporary restraining orders (TROs). The D.C. Circuit panel later denied emergency relief to the Trump administration, with Judges Henderson and Millett in the majority and Judge Walker dissenting. The judges issued 93 pages of opinions just two days after oral arguments. The administration is now “seeking emergency relief from SCOTUS,” according to a New York Times report.
Harris v. bessent (March 28): The panel granted emergency relief to the Trump administration, permitting the removal of Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board. Judges Henderson and Walker formed the majority, with judge Millett dissenting. The decision resulted in 114 pages of opinions, issued ten days after oral argument.The rapid turnaround required for these complex cases,often involving sensitive legal and political issues,places immense pressure on the judges and their staff. The ability to produce comprehensive opinions in such a short timeframe is a testament to their dedication and the hard work of their clerks.
Despite the challenges, the judiciary’s ability to address these urgent matters demonstrates its resilience and commitment to upholding the rule of law. Judge Henderson,at 80 years old and still serving in active status,exemplifies this dedication.She is ”one of around two dozen Republican-appointed circuit judges who are eligible to take senior status,” according to Bloomberg Law.
Other Developments in the Judiciary
The judiciary continues to be a focal point of national discussion, with several other notable developments:
Justice Gorsuch’s Independence: Justice Neil Gorsuch’s recent decisions on the Supreme Court have highlighted his independent approach to legal issues. He “parted ways with his two fellow Horsemen of the Right-Wing Apocalypse, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito,” on a Second Amendment case, as noted on the Advisory Opinions podcast. He also joined Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a dissent reflecting concerns for the rights of criminal defendants.
Justice Sotomayor on Judicial Independence: In an ”interview at Georgetown Law with Dean Bill Treanor,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the importance of judicial independence and condemned the abuse of power.
Threats to Judicial Security: The rise in threats against judges and their families has prompted the creation of a “Judicial Security and Independence Task Force,” which will hold its first meeting next month.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Race: The race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has become the “most expensive judicial race in American history,” with estimated spending of “$90 million so far,” according to The New York Times.
Remembering Judge Michael Boudin
The legal community mourns the loss of Judge Michael Boudin, who served on the First Circuit from 1992 to 2021. As noted in The Washington Post*, he was “one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary, universally regarded as brilliant.”
Rule of Law Under Fire: How Legal Eagles Cooley and Clement Defended Law Firms against Executive Overreach
World today News’ Senior Editor: Welcome, everyone. We’re here today to discuss a critical moment in legal history – the fight against executive overreach. We’re joined by legal scholar Dr. Eleanor Vance, who will help us unpack the meaning of the legal battles that unfolded in late March 2025, specifically focusing on the roles played by Cooley LLP and Clement & Murphy. Dr. Vance, it’s remarkable that law firms themselves became targets. Can you tell us: What was the core issue at stake in Jenner & Block and WilmerHale’s challenges to the Trump administration’s executive orders?
Dr. Eleanor Vance: Thank you for having me. The core issue was, unequivocally, the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession. These executive orders, aimed at Am Law 100 firms, were unprecedented in their direct targeting.The administration sought to curtail the ability of these firms to operate freely, which directly challenged the foundational principles of our legal system. essentially, the administration attempted to punish firms based on their perceived political affiliations or the clients they represented. This raised serious concerns about due process, equal protection under the law, and the separation of powers. It’s about whether the government can weaponize executive orders to silence or punish those who
