Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Lawsuits brought by two more law firms targeted in Trump EOs bring restraining orders, (Mar 31, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

Jenner & Block and WilmerHale both brought lawsuits after being named in Trump’s orders.

Last week, the Trump administration took aim at two more law firms that it accuses of engaging in “lawfare,” including Jenner & Block, LLP, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP (WilmerHale). Almost as soon as the ink was dry on the orders, each of the firms filed suit and, on the same day, the courts issued temporary restraining orders (TROs). A few weeks earlier, a different judge sitting in the same court had ordered a TRO in another case brought by a firm—Perkins Coie—that had been the subject of a similar order.

Jenner & Block. On Tuesday, March 25, 2025, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block,” along with an associated “fact sheet,” in which he targeted the law firm for allegedly “engag[ing] in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” According to the order, these activities include: “obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” “support[ing] attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex,” “back[ing] the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders,” “discriminat[ing] against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based ‘targets,’” and rehiring an “unethical” attorney “after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation.” As the order has done with other firms, it has instructed heads of departments and agencies to “immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Jenner pending” review and to limit Jenner employees’ official access to federal government buildings, as well as the hiring of employees of Jenner, among other things. It also includes a provision requiring the agency heads to review all contracts with Jenner or entities doing business with Jenner.

WilmerHale. On Thursday, March 27, 2025, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Addressing Risks from WilmerHale,” along with an associated “fact sheet” in which he targeted the law firm for allegedly “engag[ing] in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” According to the order, these activities include: “obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” supporting “efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” “back[ing] the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders,” “further[ing] the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote,” “discriminat[ing] against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based ‘targets,’” and “employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice.” This order provides similar instructions to agency and department heads regarding security clearance reviews. It also requires government contractors to disclose any business they do with WilmerHale and contains a similar non-hiring provision as that found in the order regarding Jenner & Block.

Lawsuits filed. Both law firms have filed suits against the Trump administration as a result of the orders. On Friday, Jenner & Block filed suit against multiple agencies and officials alleging that the EO “—is an unconstitutional abuse of power against lawyers, their clients, and the legal system. It is intended to hamper the ability of individuals and businesses to have the lawyers of their choice zealously represent them. And it is intended to coerce law firms and lawyers into renouncing the Administration’s critics and ceasing certain representations adverse to the government.” They note that 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 lawsuit includes First Amendment claims (retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, freedom of association, and petition clause, as well as free speech and associational rights based on compelled disclosure, unconstitutional conditions), due process claims (procedural, substantive, and void for vagueness), an equal protection claim, a Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim, a Fifth Amendment right to counsel claim, and a claim for ultra vires and separation of powers violation. Jenner & Block filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and requested an emergency hearing.

WilmerHale filed a similar lawsuit, alleging many of the same claims, but also including a Spending Power claim. The firm also filed a motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.

Jenner & Block TRO. On the same day as the motions, the judges assigned to each case granted them, in part. In Jenner & Block, the court enjoined the defendants from implementing or enforcing Sections 3 and 5 of the order (the government contracts and personnel provisions, respectively), and enjoined the defendants from using the statements laid out in the first “background” section of the order in certain interactions. It also ordered the defendants to suspend and rescind guidance or other direction provided to their officers, staff, employees, or contractors to communicate, effectuate, implement, or enforce Sections 1, 3, and 5 of the order and to issue guidance telling them to disregard those sections. It also orders that the defendants are directed immediately to communicate any recipient of a request for disclosure of a relationship with the firm or any person associated with it that the request is rescinded.

WilmerHale TRO. The judge assigned to WilmerHale’s lawsuit also issued a TRO, enjoining the defendants from implementing or enforcing Section 3 (the government contracts provision) and Section 5 (the personnel provision) of the Order. Otherwise, the court denied the TRO.

The lawsuits were filed in D.C. district court; the cases are Nos. 1:25-cv-00916 (JDB) and 1:25-cv-00917 (RJL).

News: LitigationNewsTrends WhiteHouseNews AgencyNews IndividualRights Discrimination GovernmentContracts