Executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump targeting law firms for their clientele and case selection have faced strong judicial opposition.Two conservative judges, appointed by former President George W. Bush, have delivered what are being described as constitutional rebukes, asserting that these actions undermine the principle of an independent legal profession.

Judge Bates’s Ruling: An attack on Core Principles

judge John Bates, known for his conventional conservative stance, criticized the Trump management’s executive order against the law firm Jenner & Block. His ruling emphasized the importance of lawyers in maintaining constitutional order.

In our constitutional order, few stars are as fixed as the principle that no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics. And in our constitutional order, few actors are as central to fixing that star as lawyers.

Judge John Bates

This case arises from one of a series of executive orders targeting law firms that, in one way or another, did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy. Like the others in the series, 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.

Judge John Bates

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 depiction 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 and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.

Judge John Bates

Judge Leon’s Forceful rebuke: A Betrayal of the Founding Fathers

Judge Richard Leon, another conservative judge, issued a strong condemnation in the WilmerHale case, asserting that the executive order challenged fundamental constitutional rights.

The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, though daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!

Judge richard Leon

The capitulation of Law Firms: A Disturbing Trend

While the judges defended constitutional principles, they also highlighted the actions of law firms that chose to capitulate to the Trump administration’s demands. Judge Bates included Trump’s own statements about these surrenders:

Other firms skipped straight to negotiations. Without ever receiving an executive order, these firms preemptively bargained with the administration and struck deals sparing them. The deals largely mirror Paul Weiss’s, though the price continues to rise: instead of $40 million, these firms have pledged $100 million or more in pro bono legal services the administration has a hand in choosing. and in public statements, the President has floated the prospect of deploying the firms to work on the administration’s own projects, rather than traditional pro bono causes, while acknowledging the firms’ lack of wrongdoing: “I agree, they’ve done nothing wrong,” the president said at a recent event. “[B]ut what the hell, they give me a lot of money considering they’ve done nothing wrong.”

Judge John Bates, quoting former President Donald Trump

Consequences of Capitulation: Internal strife and Exploitation

The consequences of these surrenders are becoming apparent. At Paul Weiss, some top partners have reportedly left to start their own firm. Furthermore, firms that caved are now facing demands for free legal services.

One of them is the Oversight Project, a conservative group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation. The group has sent letters to dozens of big law firms, including some that settled with the White House, asking each of them to provide up to $10 million in pro bono legal work to support litigation brought by conservative groups.

Some veterans have also viewed these deals as an invitation for free legal assistance.

Some veterans have viewed the deals as an open invitation to ask for free legal work. In recent months, several have called Paul Weiss’s pro bono department asking for help on a range of issues, including their rental leases and medical benefits, two people with knowledge of the requests said.

A Final Indictment: Advocating for Others Starts at Home

The rulings and subsequent events raise questions about the judgment of firms that initially caved. The executive orders were deemed unconstitutional, and the capitulation has led to exploitation. The ability of these firms to effectively advocate for others is now being questioned.

Law firms that cannot advocate successfully on their own behalf may struggle to advocate for their clients.