Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Misguided Insurance Regulation Proposals Could Increase Premiums For The Majority Of Illinoisans
Next Post: Intellectual and developmental disability services brace for potential Medicaid cuts
Posted in:
* The Trump administration is facing legal pushback from some law firms targeted by executive orders. Jenner & Block, for instance, has filed a lawsuit arguing that the order is unconstitutional. Crain’s…
Chicago law firm Jenner & Block sued the Trump administration today, seeking to halt an executive order that could cripple the firm’s ability to represent clients.
The suit, filed in a Washington, D.C., federal court, alleges the administration engaged in unconstitutional retaliation that violates the First Amendment. […]
President Donald Trump targeted Jenner & Block in an executive order earlier this week, noting the role a former member of the firm, Andrew Weissmann, played in the probe of Trump’s links to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. […]
Trump has gone after firms and attorneys who were involved in that investigation, including a similar order signed yesterday that goes after the firm WilmerHale, where special counsel Robert Mueller once worked.
* Click here for the President’s order. From the firm’s lawsuit…
Like the prior executive orders targeting law firms, the Order sanctions Jenner for its representation of clients in cases adverse to the government, for its prior association with an individual who has not worked at the firm in four years but has been critical of the President, and for its hiring practices. Each of these grounds, standing alone, is a constitutionally impermissible basis to target Jenner. The Order violates the First Amendment by targeting Jenner for its protected speech; by discriminating based on viewpoint; by seeking to prevent Jenner from petitioning the government on behalf of itself and of its clients, and by leveraging government controls to suppress protected speech and association. The Order violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by impairing the ability of Jenner and its attorneys to practice law; by creating a list of disfavored firms that is anathema to our scheme or ordered liberating; and by creating a vague set of prohibitions that invite arbitrary enforcement. The Order violates the right to council under the Sixth Amendment by impairing the Firm’s ability to represent its clients in connection with government-facing work, including criminal matters, and by undermining the attorney-client relationship and clients’ right to counsel of their choice.
* Former Presidents of the Chicago Council of Lawyers defended Jenner & Block, and also called Trump’s executive order a violation of constitutional rights. Their press release…
“We strongly support the decision of Jenner & Block to fight in court the blatantly unconstitutional order issued by President Trump against them. As fellow Chicago lawyers we welcome their standing strongly in the tradition of Bert Jenner, a great Chicago lawyer who would be proud of his firm today.
“Lawyers are not spectators to the Constitution; we are its agents. We cannot allow the President to scare law firms and lawyers into silence. Lawyers must refuse to bow to illegal and unconstitutional threats of retribution for having the temerity to represent clients and cases opposing the administration.”
Robert Bennett
Locke Bowman
John Christie
Daniel Coyne
Matt Daniels
George Galland
Jeff Gilbert
Carrie Huff
Gary Johnson
Arnie Kanter
Barry Miller
Judd Miner
David Melton
Paul Mollica
Marty Oberman
Sheli Rosenberg
John Schmidt
Tom Staunton
* Perkins Coie is also challenging Trump’s executive orders. Wall Street Journal…
Perkins Coie, a law firm with Democratic ties, is fighting against President Trump’s executive order that sought to cripple the firm. Despite losing some business, the firm’s biggest clients and superstar lawyers are standing with it.
Perkins Coie’s lawsuit against Trump’s order argues that it is unconstitutional and threatens the firm’s survival. The firm is being represented by Williams & Connolly in the case. […]
When President Trump signed an executive order attacking Perkins Coie, the white-shoe law firm did what most of its rivals have not. It fought back. And so far, its biggest clients and superstar lawyers are standing with it.
“The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie has affected the country for decades,” began Trump’s March 6 order. It sought to cripple a firm that had deep Democratic ties and had tangled with Trump. The order stripped Perkins employees of security clearances, limited their aeat used the firm.
One of Perkins Coie’s Democratic clients is Governor JB Pritzker. Since 2019, Pritzker’s campaign has spent over $3 million on legal services from the firm.
* Related…
* NYT | Judge Assails White House Efforts to Kick Her Off Perkins Coie Case: A judge on Wednesday angrily rejected the Justice Department’s efforts to remove her from considering the law firm Perkins Coie’s request to stop a Trump order that could effectively cripple the firm’s ability to represent its clients. In a blistering decision, the judge, Beryl A. Howell, said that the attempt to kick her off the case threatened to “impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system.” It also signaled an effort to blame any losses the department might ultimately face in the case on her work as a judge rather than on the weakness of its own legal arguments, she added.
* NYT | With New Decree, Trump Seeks to Cow the Legal Profession: Mr. Trump issued the order late Friday night, after a tumultuous week for the American legal community in which one of the country’s premier firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, struck a deal with the White House to spare the company from a punitive decree issued by Mr. Trump the previous week. Vanita Gupta, who as a civil rights lawyer and a former Justice Department official has both sued the government and defended it in court, said Mr. Trump’s memo “attacks the very foundations of our legal system by threatening and intimidating litigants who aim to hold our government accountable to the law and the Constitution.”
* Reuters | US conservative, Democratic lawyers urge Bondi to defend lawyers and firms: More than 700 lawyers and legal groups representing diverse viewpoints have signed a letter urging U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to defend the independence of attorneys and law firms, as the Trump administration escalates attacks on some of the country’s top law offices. They said Bondi had a responsibility as the nation’s top government lawyer to oppose attacks on the legal profession and judges. The influence campaign comes a day after the White House targeted a fourth major law firm with an executive order that threatened its business.
* Illinois Attorney General | An Open Letter to the Legal Community Regarding the President’s Attacks on the Legal Profession and the Federal Judiciary: As state attorneys general, we stand for the rule of law. As members of the legal profession and of our state bars, we all must stand together. The President’s attacks on the practice of law must not, and will not, subvert our zealous representation of our clients. We also stand firm in our support of the federal judiciary and judicial independence. We call on our colleagues to denounce suggestions that a judicial decision must be the result of bias simply because the result is undesired. We categorically reject the President’s calls for the impeachment of judges in response to rulings contrary to positions his administration has advanced. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a March 18, 2025 statement: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
* Politico | Two more law firms targeted by Trump sue to block punishing executive orders: Jenner & Block’s lawsuit contends Trump’s order is an unconstitutional threat to the firm and the legal system itself, seeking to “punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate.” The lawsuit was filed on the firm’s behalf by California-based law firm Cooley LLP.
posted by Isabel Miller
Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:09 pm
Previous Post: Misguided Insurance Regulation Proposals Could Increase Premiums For The Majority Of Illinoisans
Next Post: Intellectual and developmental disability services brace for potential Medicaid cuts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Trump and his ilk complained constantly about “weaponization” of the government. I’ve never seen a government more weaponized against people than the “government” we have today (and I put government in quotes on purpose).
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:15 pm
Someone should find out what the lawyers in the ILGA think about these executive orders…
Comment by Andy Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:19 pm
I am not claiming that Donald Trump is seeking to create an authoritarian regime. But if he was trying to do that, this would be one of the things he would do.
Another thing he would do is to attack academic freedom and free speech, while also locking up people with legal status without due process.
But I don’t know what is in his heart. All I can do is to consider his actions. I’m sure there could be many reasons to attack the Constitution. Republicans seem OK with everything so far, so maybe there is a patriotic explanation for all of this chaos.
Maybe a Trump supporter could help me understand how what I am seeing everyday is not a slide into fascism?
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:23 pm
===Someone should find out what the lawyers in the ILGA think about these executive orders===
Oh, some of them have made that known. But I dunno what condo/family law/property tax/insurance/etc. attorney would contribute
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:26 pm
@Demoralized +1
It has been said here many times, but with the maga’s every accusation is a confession.
I am surprised our blog trump supporters have not responded to @47th Wards query. Shocked I tell you.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:28 pm
Bravo J & B, bravo.
I have no reticence to call it what it is - pure authoritarianism. MAGA has been clear in their worship for the other authoritarians of the world.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:40 pm
So, we throw barratry on the pile of illegal and unconstitutional actions by the President and his Department of Revenge. Ordinarily this would be a slam dunk in any court but with the current Supreme Court, who knows; it could turn out to be Opposite Day on the Mickey Mouse Club.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:40 pm
That was me just now talking about barratry.
Comment by Give Us Barrabbas Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:41 pm
I am unfamiliar with Federal law but it seems like in the Federal system a defendant does not have a right to a substitution of Judge motion. One without cause just a SOJ for no reason
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:46 pm
–Another thing he would do is to attack academic freedom and free speech–
Umm, see what he’s doing to the Smithsonian now.
Comment by Steve Rogers Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 1:54 pm
@Demoralized– While you’re obviously correct, I think we need to emphasize that this has been the modus operandi of the GOP for decades. Accuse others of what you plan on doing, given the opportunity, then clutch your pearls when someone does it back or calls you out on it.
Regardless of your position on various legitimate policy debates, my default assumption when interacting with any Republican elected official or member of their political apparatus is that they are not ever acting in good faith.
While I’m sure you can find individual Republicans about whom this is not true, they are getting rarer and rarer, and their willingness to associate with the rest of the Republican party means that they are, for better or worse, guilty by association for tolerating that behavior.
Comment by Homebody Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 2:18 pm
In an often misunderstood quotation, Jake Cade, in Henry VI, Part 2, stated, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. Justice John Paul Stevens understood the true meaning of the statement, when he wrote in a 1985 Supreme Court dissent, “After a careful reading of that text will reveal, Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”
Comment by Retired SURS Employee Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 2:22 pm
I feel sympathy of Jenner & Block, but also think there was a lot of thinking “it will never happen to us” in big business in general. I hope fighting turns out to be the correct decision.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 2:28 pm
The executive orders naming specific law firms may be the most glaring example of unconstitutional garbage coming from the white house. Straight up vindictiveness.
Glad to see someone fighting back.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 2:37 pm
The Illinois Congressional delegation — well, at least the Democrats — should also be issuing a statement of support of Jenner and Perkins.
Comment by Keyrock Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 3:04 pm
I wonder who is writing these Executive Orders for Trump? Do they have an understanding of Constitutional Law or are the just winging it?
Comment by In_The_Middle Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 3:39 pm
- Do they have an understanding of Constitutional Law or are the just winging it? -
These people know exactly what they’re doing. They are hoping SCOTUS will grant these powers to Trump.
Constitutional law is only as good as those who get to interpret it.
Comment by Excitable Boy Friday, Mar 28, 25 @ 4:02 pm