LAW FIRMS BEND UNDER THE NEW ADMINISTRATION

Sofia Chentsova is a sophomore in the Georgetown University College of Arts & Sciences majoring in Government and minoring in English.

I. INTRODUCTION

In an Executive Order issued on March 25, 2025, President Donald J. Trump emphasized his initiative to condemn big law firms that represent interests and practices that the administration deems incompatible with its goals. Some of these unacceptable practices include pro bono work that helps immigrants or noncitizens who are declared political enemies. Firms under fire include Jenner & Block LLP (“Jenner”), Arthur Andersen LLP,  Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Covington & Burling. The order attacked Jenner for previously “[supporting] attacks against women and children” by not “accepting the biological reality of sex,” and backing “the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing…crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders.”¹ 

II. Big Law Firms in the US Face Retaliation for Representing Previous Clients

Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss suffered significant reputational damage and faced legal challenges, as well as direct targeting by the White House. On March 6, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” which suspends the security clearances of individuals at the law firm Perkins Coie LLP, pending a review of their consistency with national interests. The order also directs federal agencies to cease providing goods, property, materials, and services to Perkins Coie and to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm or associated entities. Additionally, agencies are instructed to limit Perkins Coie employees’ access to government buildings and to refrain from hiring its employees without specific authorization.² Perkins Coie countersued against President Trump’s executive order stripping security clearance for firm lawyers.³ In the countersuit, Perkins Coie wrote, “The Order imposes these punishments as retaliation for the firm’s association with, and representation of, clients that the President perceives as his political opponents.”⁴ This echoes an authoritarian practice of eradicating opposition by labelling lawyers and judges as political enemies, thus eliminating legal checks on an administration.⁵ On March 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked the administration’s attempt to prevent Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings, including courthouses, and the requirement of government contractors to disclose business with the firm. Judge Howell held that Trump’s order violated the First Amendment, as it retaliated against protected speech and infringed upon their clients’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Perkins Coie’s clients included Hillary Clinton, Fusion GPS, and activist donors like George Soros, who are political opponents of the administration. 

III. Groups Targeted by Trump’s Administration Without Legal Protections 

The administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the same act that established detention zones for Japanese Americans during World War II (“WWII”), to label groups as terrorists and national enemies.⁶ Previously, the law has been invoked during WWII and after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. It is being used to deport nationals who are labeled terrorists for gang affiliation, such as individuals from Latin American countries, without due process. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process of law to all individuals before depriving them of rights, liberty, or property.⁷ 

An ongoing debate is whether the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause trump executive orders and the enforcement of regulations, such as the Alien Enemies Act. A factor to consider is how executive orders targeting individuals and deporting them without a court hearing undermine the judicial process. These rights are given to individuals when they are on U.S. soil, but it is unclear whether they are entitled to those deemed ‘terrorists.’ In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), the Supreme Court held that the Alien Registration Act of 1940, which allowed for the deportation of individuals with ties to the Communist Party, was within the power of Congress.⁸ It is unclear if this applies to individuals who are from countries that may be involved with drug trafficking. It may be a stretch to rely solely on national origin or citizenship status without due process. Still, this application is currently being administered. As a result, law firms that work with undocumented individuals are considered to be acting against the current administration.⁹ 

IV. Big Law Battles D.E.I. Programs

Pro bono work that covered undocumented immigrants is not the only criterion for the Trump administration’s hit on “Big Law.” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“D.E.I.”) programs are another target. The Trump Administration is committed to ending all D.E.I. programs and repackaged this initiative as “ending discrimination.”¹⁰ The Administration justified its accusations against Perkins Coie by classifying behavior that engaged in “blatant race-based and sex-based discrimination, including quotas, but purposefully hid the nature of such discrimination through deceiving language” as D.E.I. by having hiring quotas in 2019.¹¹ Perkins Coie, under this new definition, is guilty of violating civil laws and breaching public trust due to its past promotion determinants, such as race and other factors. Even though an Executive Order can be challenged, firms like Paul Weiss argue that their reputations have been dealt irreparable damage, as clients may be incentivized to take their business elsewhere to avoid being swept into legal battles with the administration.¹² 

Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss are not the only firms fighting attacks from the Trump Administration. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas targeted twenty law firms with letters requesting detailed information about their D.E.I. employment practices.¹³ D.E.I. programs are now being reexamined through the lens of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).¹⁴ Law firms and lawyers, especially those representing Democrats or other party rivals, are threatened with decreased funding, such as from the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), and legal opposition.¹⁵ Labeling law firms non-conforming reduces opposition and obstacles to Trump’s agenda. The EEOC has decided that law firms may no longer limit, segregate, or classify employees “based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a way that affects their status or deprives them of employment opportunities,” by claiming that diversity is not an exception in Title VII.¹⁶ The biggest letdown for the firms experiencing the first wave of executive orders targeting them was the lack of camaraderie and support from other legal firms. Rachel Cohen, a former associate at Skadden Arps, noted that big law has a deep collective action problem, and other firms are keeping their heads down to avoid being targeted.¹⁷ She signaled that it is unusual for an administration to defy court orders so blatantly: “Any other president—having received a temporary restraining order on this executive order would not have issued another one, targeting another law firm.”¹⁸ There is alarming evidence that the Executive branch targets firms for previous practices like defending individuals who might disagree with the party in power. 

V. CONCLUSION

Executive regulation targeting specific law firms can be concerning for future administrations. The law is subject to the Constitution and the courts, and this power is entrusted to the judicial branch. This country must ensure immunity for firms that follow the law, even if their past practices do not align with a new administration. Some firms prioritize financial gain by adhering to the standards set and hoping to stay under the radar during the next four years. A challenge emerges when Executive power overreaches and comes into conflict with established legal practices and lower courts. A precedent, such as President Roosevelt’s overreach, exists and has allowed similar actions to be taken by a president; however, the administration’s attitude towards eradicating political opponents is worrisome. If there is a possibility of lawyers and judges who are not ideologically aligned with the party in power to be targeted and punished, the nation tilts towards autocracy—the very regime the U.S. Constitution is meant to protect us against. The Human Rights Foundation warns that “independent judges are a nightmare for would-be dictators” and “creeping authoritarian regimes use measures disguised as legitimate or reasonable that intimidate and harass judges or otherwise obstruct their work.”¹⁹ Legal statutes can change, and new laws may be passed, but the danger lies in the fact that lawyers and judges fear retaliation for exercising what they swore to do: obey the Constitution and follow the oath they swore.²⁰

1.  Exec. Order No. 14246, 90 Fed. Reg. 13997 (Mar. 6, 2025).
   ↩︎
2. Id. ↩︎
3.  Complaint, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00716 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2025).
   ↩︎
4. Rebecca Beitsch, Perkins Coie Sues Trump Over Executive Order Stripping Its Security Clearances, The Hill (Mar. 12, 2025), https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5189431-perkins-coie-sues-trump-security-clearances/.
   ↩︎
5.  Venla Stang & Hannah Van Dijcke, The Dictator’s Toolkit: Disguised Judicial Attacks, Human Rights Foundation (Aug. 24, 2023), https://hrf.org/latest/the-dictators-toolkit-disguised-judicial-attacks/. ↩︎
6.  Rachel Treisman, Alien Enemies Act: The 1798 Law Is Trump’s New Deportation Tool, NPR (Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/03/18/nx-s1-5331857/alien-enemies-act-trump-deportations.
   ↩︎
7.  U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. ↩︎
8.  Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952). ↩︎
9.  See supra note 1. ↩︎
10.  See supra note 5. ↩︎
11.  Id. ↩︎
12. Rebecca Beitsch, Trump Administration Targets Law Firms, The Hill (Mar. 22, 2025), https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5211686-trump-administration-targets-law-firms;  Perkins Coie Sues Trump Over Executive Order Stripping Its Security Clearances, The Hill (Mar. 11, 2025), https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5189431-perkins-coie-sues-trump-security-clearances/.
    ↩︎
13. Press Release, EEOC, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas Sends Letters to 20 Law Firms Requesting Information About DEI-Related Employment Practices (Mar. 17, 2025), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-acting-chair-andrea-lucas-sends-letters-20-law-firms-requesting-information-about-dei.
    ↩︎
14.  Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2018) (as amended).
    ↩︎
15. Press Release, Legal Services Corporation, 2023 pro bono grants totaling $5 million awarded to legal aid organizations (2023, October 2), https://www.lsc.gov/press-release/2023-pro-bono-grants-totaling-5-million-awarded-legal-aid-organizations.
    ↩︎
16.  See supra note 16. ↩︎
17.  See supra note 14. ↩︎
18.  Id. ↩︎
19.  See supra note 7. ↩︎
20. Lauren E. Bartlett, Human Rights and Lawyer’s Oaths, 36 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 411 (2023), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/legal-ethics-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2023/11/GT-GJLE230020.pdf.
    ↩︎