Key points:
- The ABA is suing Donald Trump over executive orders allegedly designed to intimidate major U.S. law firms.
- The orders reportedly influenced some firms’ decisions about client intake and public advocacy.
- Several firms have already secured injunctions striking the orders down as unconstitutional.
The American Bar Association filed suit Monday against former President Donald Trump, alleging he employed a campaign of intimidation against some of the country's most prominent law firms. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that Trump’s executive orders were part of a deliberate strategy to dissuade legal representation for causes or clients opposed to his administration.
The lawsuit claims the “Law Firm Orders” issued by Trump violated constitutional protections by threatening the ability of lawyers to operate independently. Among other penalties, the orders allegedly jeopardized security clearances, restricted access to federal buildings, and impacted clients’ eligibility for federal contracts.
Represented by Susman Godfrey, one of the affected firms, the ABA is seeking a broad judicial declaration that such executive actions are unconstitutional. “This is the time to stand up, speak out and seek relief from our courts,” said ABA President William R. Bay in a statement.
The complaint states that Trump’s campaign had tangible effects: at least one firm among the top 50 in the U.S. altered its case intake to avoid conflict with the administration. Additionally, advocacy groups reportedly faced new difficulty securing legal representation after the issuance of the orders.
Three firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—have already succeeded in obtaining permanent injunctions nullifying the executive orders as unconstitutional. Susman Godfrey currently holds a temporary injunction and is awaiting a final ruling.
Meanwhile, nine other firms entered into agreements with the Trump administration, pledging nearly $1 billion in pro bono services in exchange for avoiding similar targeting. The ABA alleges these arrangements included commitments to work on Trump-endorsed initiatives, such as efforts to combat anti-semitism and assist veterans. One such firm, Cadwalader, is reportedly partnering with the Brooklyn District Attorney to support conviction integrity efforts.
This lawsuit is part of the ABA’s broader confrontation with Trump-era policies. The organization has previously challenged actions that affected its judicial nomination vetting process and suffered significant financial strain after the administration slashed $69 million in grant funding. A second lawsuit is pending over an additional $3.2 million in cuts.
Further tensions escalated earlier this year when Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened the ABA’s accreditation authority over diversity mandates at law schools. In April, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche barred DOJ employees from participating in ABA events in any official capacity.
The White House has not responded to requests for comment on the litigation.
