American Bar Association sues Trump administration over intimidation of law firms
The American Bar Association (ABA), which globally is one of the largest voluntary associations of lawyers, has recently filed a lawsuit against the US government, including the Executive Office of the President, numerous federal departments and agencies, and their respective heads.
The core of the lawsuit, filed in a district court (District of Columbia) revolves around what the ABA terms the ‘Law Firm Intimidation Policy’ adopted by the Trump administration. The ABA asserts that since taking office, Trump and his administration have wielded the extensive powers of the executive branch to unlawfully coerce lawyers and law firms. The objective, according to the lawsuit, is to force legal professionals to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions that the administration disfavors. This alleged intimidation is carried out through various means, including executive orders, letters, memos, and public statements specifically designed to harm targeted law firms and deter others.
The ABA filed this lawsuit because it believes this policy represents an unprecedented challenge to the American legal profession, the rule of law, and access to justice for all citizens. The lawsuit highlights that this kind of clear retaliation chills First-Amendment protected activity, sending ripples across the legal community.
Lawyers and law firms are reportedly becoming reluctant to take on cases challenging the federal government due to fears of retaliatory actions, which severely limits access to legal representation for individuals and organizations whose views are not aligned with the administration. The ABA emphasizes the critical role lawyers play in the constitutional system as a check on the executive branch, arguing that without independent legal advocacy, the judiciary cannot function effectively.
The lawsuit details several tactics employed by the administration as part of this intimidation policy. These include:
The ABA’s filing specifically references multiple executive orders issued against firms like Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, citing how these orders caused significant financial and reputational damage. It also points to ‘deals’ struck with other prominent law firms (such as Skadden, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Shearman Sterling, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Latham & Watkins, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft) where they agreed to provide millions of dollars in pro bono services for administration-approved causes and alter internal policies to avoid similar sanctions.
The ABA is seeking several forms of relief from the court. Primarily, it asks the court to declare the entire ‘Law Firm Intimidation Policy’ unconstitutional. Furthermore, it seeks injunctive relief to prevent the defendants—the US government, federal departments, agencies, and their heads—from implementing and enforcing this policy against the ABA or any of its members in the future. Specifically, the ABA requests that the court:
The core of the lawsuit, filed in a district court (District of Columbia) revolves around what the ABA terms the ‘Law Firm Intimidation Policy’ adopted by the Trump administration. The ABA asserts that since taking office, Trump and his administration have wielded the extensive powers of the executive branch to unlawfully coerce lawyers and law firms. The objective, according to the lawsuit, is to force legal professionals to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions that the administration disfavors. This alleged intimidation is carried out through various means, including executive orders, letters, memos, and public statements specifically designed to harm targeted law firms and deter others.
The ABA filed this lawsuit because it believes this policy represents an unprecedented challenge to the American legal profession, the rule of law, and access to justice for all citizens. The lawsuit highlights that this kind of clear retaliation chills First-Amendment protected activity, sending ripples across the legal community.
Lawyers and law firms are reportedly becoming reluctant to take on cases challenging the federal government due to fears of retaliatory actions, which severely limits access to legal representation for individuals and organizations whose views are not aligned with the administration. The ABA emphasizes the critical role lawyers play in the constitutional system as a check on the executive branch, arguing that without independent legal advocacy, the judiciary cannot function effectively.
The lawsuit details several tactics employed by the administration as part of this intimidation policy. These include:
- Terminating security clearances: Individuals at targeted law firms have had their security clearances immediately suspended.
- Severing government contracts: Government contracts held by law firms and their clients are threatened with termination, and contractors are mandated to disclose business dealings with specific law firms.
- Limiting access to federal buildings and personnel: Employees of targeted firms face restrictions on accessing federal buildings and engaging with government employees in their official capacity.
- Refraining from hiring: Federal agencies are reportedly refraining from hiring employees from certain law firms for government jobs without a special waiver.
- Targeted investigations: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The ABA’s filing specifically references multiple executive orders issued against firms like Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, citing how these orders caused significant financial and reputational damage. It also points to ‘deals’ struck with other prominent law firms (such as Skadden, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Shearman Sterling, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Latham & Watkins, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft) where they agreed to provide millions of dollars in pro bono services for administration-approved causes and alter internal policies to avoid similar sanctions.
The ABA is seeking several forms of relief from the court. Primarily, it asks the court to declare the entire ‘Law Firm Intimidation Policy’ unconstitutional. Furthermore, it seeks injunctive relief to prevent the defendants—the US government, federal departments, agencies, and their heads—from implementing and enforcing this policy against the ABA or any of its members in the future. Specifically, the ABA requests that the court:
- Declare unconstitutional the provisions related to security clearance termination, government contracting, federal building and employee access, and federal employment.
- Enjoin the defendants from enforcing these provisions against any ABA member or their law firm based on their affiliation or client representations.
- Enjoin the defendants from initiating attorney conduct and disciplinary proceedings or making referrals for disciplinary action against ABA members or their firms based on their affiliations or client representations.
- Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper, including costs.
Next Story