For those keeping score at home, Paul Weiss and Skadden got on their knees and begged Trump to leave them alone if they give him what he wants and Perkins Coie is fighting the administration’s order since it’s, you know, unlawful.
Now Perkins has some company on the courageous side of the ledger with Jenner & Block filing suit in the D.C. District this morning. The case will be going to Judge Howell as a related case to the Perkins fight. Expect to hear gnashing of teeth about her on Fox for the next week.
Represented by Cooley LLP, Jenner’s suit outlines a series of First Amendment and Due Process violations — and an ultra vires claim for good measure — against the Trump administration in a suit with a lengthy caption that reads like the Avengers: Endgame credits except for MAGA all-stars.
The Order is one of the latest in a series of materially identical executive orders— one of which has already been enjoined by a court in this District—targeting law firms without process based on their representation of clients in matters adverse to the President or his Administration and/or their associations with individuals who have criticized the President. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board recognized that the President is taking these actions “to intimidate elite law firms from representing his opponents or plaintiffs who challenge his policies.” See The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Trump, Perkins Coie and John Adams, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 11, 2025, 6:59 PM), https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-perkins-coie-covingtonand-burling-executive-order-4b285e8b. But a fundamental aspect of our constitutional system is that “[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 180 (2024). Indeed, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 585 U.S. 878, 892 (2018) (quoting W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (emphasis omitted)). The Constitution, top to bottom, protects against such attempts by the government to target citizens and lawyers based on the opinions they voice, the people with whom they associate, and the clients they represent.
There’s really something special about the general embrace of “look, even the knuckledraggers at the Wall Street Journal know this is nuts” as an argument.
The decision by Paul Weiss to bow to the administration ends up unintentionally playing a role in the Jenner suit, with the firm citing its weak-willed peer’s settlement as proof that the Trump order is entirely pretextual. Because if the resolution to the order is throwing Mark Pomerantz under the bus and giving MAGA $40 million worth of pro bono, then…
The Paul Weiss settlement demonstrates that the President’s national security concerns do not justify the executive actions against law firms. Nothing in Paul Weiss’s actions introduces new security measures or alleviates any colorable national security concerns.
If Paul Weiss ends up accidentally being the reason other firms defeat these orders, it ranks as one of the most hilarious law firm backfires in history.
(Complaint below…)
Jenner & Block sues U.S. government following Trump executive order [Reuters]
Earlier: Jenner & Block Latest Biglaw Firm Targeted By Trump
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
