A U.S. District Court has struck down a Trump-era executive order targeting prominent law firm Jenner & Block, marking another legal defeat for the administration’s campaign against firms tied to its political adversaries. Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled on Friday that the directive violated constitutional protections and sought to punish the firm for its legal advocacy and affiliations.

The order in question had suspended security clearances for Jenner & Block attorneys and restricted their access to federal buildings and contracting opportunities. In his opinion, Judge Bates said the order clearly targeted Jenner for “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,” Bates wrote, finding that the order violated the firm’s First Amendment rights and was designed to “chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like.” The ruling echoes a May 2 decision by Judge Beryl Howell that similarly struck down an executive order against Perkins Coie.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields defended the president’s authority to issue such orders, calling the granting of security clearances a “sensitive judgment call entrusted to the president.” Fields also criticized Jenner for its legal work on behalf of Harvard University, which on the same day sued the administration over the revocation of its authority to enroll foreign students.

“Jenner & Block’s persistent efforts to undermine the administration, promote antisemitism and radicalism, and represent un-American interests further validate the president’s decision,” Fields said in a separate statement.

In response, Jenner & Block stated it was “pleased with the court’s decision to decisively strike down an unconstitutional attack on our clients' right to have zealous, independent counsel and our firm's right to represent our clients fully and without compromise.”

Trump’s executive order had accused the firm of engaging in partisan “lawfare” and highlighted its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a lead prosecutor in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order also criticized the firm’s pro bono work supporting transgender rights and immigration protections.

Other firms, including WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, have filed lawsuits to block similar executive orders, and judges are expected to issue rulings in those cases soon. Meanwhile, nine major firms—among them Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps—have pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services aligned with White House priorities in what critics have described as efforts to avoid retaliation.

The Department of Justice has defended the executive orders as lawful exercises of presidential authority, and it may appeal Judge Bates’ ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

For more details, see the full article at Reuters.