Trump's Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms Spark Legal and Ethical Controversy

By Devin Breitenberg

In a series of unprecedented moves, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders targeting prominent law firms, accusing them of engaging in activities detrimental to national interests. These actions have ignited a firestorm of legal challenges and debates over constitutional rights and the independence of the legal profession.​

Perkins Coie in the Crosshairs

On March 6, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14230, which barred the federal government from utilizing the services of Perkins Coie, a major law firm. The order also suspended security clearances for the firm's attorneys and restricted their access to federal buildings. The administration accused Perkins Coie of "dishonest and dangerous activity," citing their representation of political opponents and alleged discriminatory hiring practices related to diversity initiatives .​

Perkins Coie swiftly challenged the order in court, arguing it violated their First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. On May 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled the executive order unconstitutional, stating it was an "attack on the foundational principles of the American legal system" .​

Broader Campaign Against Law Firms

The targeting of Perkins Coie is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration against law firms perceived as adversarial. Executive Order 14237, signed on March 14, 2025, targeted Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss), citing their involvement in litigation related to the January 6 Capitol events and their diversity policies. Facing potential loss of government contracts and other sanctions, Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services aligned with administration goals and to revise their hiring practices, leading to the rescission of the executive order

Other firms, such as Susman Godfrey, chose to contest the executive orders in court. Within hours of being targeted, Susman Godfrey filed a lawsuit against the federal government, challenging the constitutionality of the actions. Preliminary rulings have favored these firms, with judges blocking key provisions of the executive orders and criticizing the government's legal rationale.

Legal Community's Response

The legal profession is deeply divided over these developments. Some firms have complied with the administration's demands to avoid punitive measures, while others have stood firm, defending their constitutional rights and professional independence. Critics argue that the executive orders represent an abuse of presidential power, aiming to intimidate and punish legal entities for their associations and advocacy.​

Legal scholars and civil rights organizations have expressed concern over the implications of these actions. The American Constitution Society stated that the administration's use of executive power to penalize law firms for their representation choices undermines the core principles of the independent bar and the rule of law.

Conclusion

President Trump's executive orders targeting law firms have set off a contentious legal and ethical debate, with significant implications for the independence of the legal profession and the balance of powers in the U.S. government. As court battles continue, the outcomes will likely shape the boundaries of executive authority and the rights of legal practitioners in the years to come.​

Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor  for Veritas Expositae.  You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com