Key points:
- Jenner & Block and WilmerHale secured temporary restraining orders blocking parts of executive orders targeting them.
- The orders had directed the termination of contracts and suspension of security clearances due to the firms’ client representations.
- Judges cited constitutional violations and the potential for severe financial harm to the firms.
Federal judges granted temporary restraining orders late Friday to Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, partially blocking enforcement of executive orders issued against the firms by the Trump administration earlier in the week. The rulings represent the latest legal pushback against efforts to penalize major law firms for their pro bono work and client relationships.
In Jenner’s case, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates enjoined the administration from enforcing key provisions of the executive order, ruling that the firm had demonstrated likely violations of its First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. Bates also blocked government agencies from using the order’s rationale—contained in section one—to influence interactions with Jenner or its clients, according to The American Lawyer.
In Wilmer’s case, Judge Richard Leon partially granted the firm’s TRO request, halting enforcement of sections that would terminate federal contracts and limit employee access to government buildings. However, Leon declined to block section two, which suspends security clearances for Wilmer employees pending further review. Leon noted that the executive order could cause “crippling losses” that threaten Wilmer’s viability.
“The court’s decision to block key provisions of the order vindicates our and our clients’ foundational First Amendment rights,” Wilmer said in a statement. Jenner similarly warned in court filings that the executive action jeopardized its ability to practice law, citing that over 40% of its revenue is derived from clients with government ties.
Wilmer argued that its clients—21 of the firm’s 25 largest—are government contractors, and the order could lead to widespread terminations of business relationships out of fear of political retaliation. These clients account for 30% of the firm’s annual revenues, the filing noted.
The executive orders followed a pattern of earlier actions targeting other Big Law firms. Measures included the suspension of security clearances, the termination of government contracts, and scrutiny of the firms’ pro bono engagements. The orders accused Jenner and Wilmer of “undermining justice” through their advocacy and representation of disfavored clients.
Both firms cited U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell’s earlier ruling granting a TRO to Perkins Coie in a similar case. Wilmer asked the court to treat its case as related, but Judge Howell noted factual differences, including that Wilmer’s order also referenced work performed by former DOJ employees prior to their affiliation with the firm.
Jenner is represented by Cooley’s Michael Attanasio, and Wilmer by Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy. Both firms’ suits highlight rising legal tensions between the private bar and executive authority, especially in politically charged representations.
