Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D.D.C.: Federal district judge strikes down Trump executive order that targeted WilmerHale, (May 28, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The firm’s affiliation with Robert S. Mueller III, according to the court “has also attracted the President’s displeasure.”

A federal district judge in D.C. yesterday struck down Executive Order 14250, “Addressing Risks from WilmerHale,” which targeted the law firm, whose cases and clients “have drawn the ire of President Trump,” according to the court. The EO had directed a review of security clearances held by employees of the firm, directed termination of its federal government contracts, instructed investigation of its hiring practices for potential violations of race-based and sex-based nondiscrimination laws, and directed the limitation of its employees’ access to federal government buildings. Issuing declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the EO, the court found that it violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the separation of powers. The firm’s equal protection, Fifth Amendment right to counsel, and Spending Clause claims, however, were dismissed (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 25-917 (RJL) (D.D.C. May 27, 2025)).

WilmerHale. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is a law firm with over 2,000 employees, approximately 1,200 of whom are lawyers, according to the court. The firm has 12 offices around the world, and its attorneys work in a variety of sectors, including criminal defense, patent prosecution, securities law, and regulatory and government affairs. It represents a wide variety of clients, and it has represented clients in litigation against the federal government during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The “ire of President Trump.” However, certain of the firm’s cases and clients “have drawn the ire of President Trump,” according to the court. The complaint highlighted a few, including the firm’s representation of inspectors general alleging that Trump improperly fired them, the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means in litigation resulting in Trump’s disclosure of his personal tax returns, the Biden and Harris campaigns in election litigation, and the Democratic National Committee and state-level Democratic Party organizations in lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Robert Mueller. The firm’s affiliation with Robert S. Mueller III “has also attracted the President’s displeasure,” according to the court. “After a long and distinguished career in the Government, Mueller joined WilmerHale as a partner in 1993, and he remained there until he re-joined the Department of Justice (‘DOJ’) in 1995, where he ultimately served as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2001 to 2013.” Mueller then returned to WilmerHale again for a few years before then-Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed him to serve as Special Counsel charged with investigating allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. According to the complaint, because of his role as Special Counsel, “Mueller personally became a target of President’s Trump ire.” After the Special Counsel’s Office issued its Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 President Election, Mueller rejoined WilmerHale, but he has since retired from the firm.

Campaign threats. During the 2024 presidential campaign, then-former President Trump “threatened to ‘go after’ his political opponents and warned that ‘WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law,’” adding “‘[p]lease beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers.’”

Prior EOs targeting law firms. After he won the 2024 election, Trump renewed these warnings, stating that “[w]e have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after, because they were very dishonest people.” He followed through on these threats, issuing memoranda and executive orders targeting Covington & Burling LLP, Perkins Coie LLP, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Jenner & Block LLP.

The Paul Weiss EO was rescinded in March 2025 after that firm, among other things, agreed to “dedicate[] the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during [President Trump’s] term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives,” in the words of Trump’s rescission order.

The present EO and Fact Sheet. On March 27, 2025, only two days later after issuing the Jenner & Block EO, Trump issued the executive order at issue here, EO 14250, 90 Fed. Reg. 14549 (Apr. 3, 2025), entitled “Addressing Risks from WilmerHale.” The EO’s “Background” section states that the firm has “abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States”; “supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race”; “backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs”; and “furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections.” It accuses WilmerHale of “employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice,” cites WilmerHale “welcoming” Mueller and his colleagues to the firm despite their involvement in “one of the most partisan investigations in American history,” and culminates in a declaration that this type of “weaponization of the justice system” must not be condoned.

Security clearances. A section on “Security Clearance Review” instructs the heads of relevant federal agencies to “immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at WilmerHale, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.” And it orders the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to “identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of WilmerHale.” The heads of relevant agencies are then to cease providing such materials and services to the firm, “to the extent permitted by law.”

Federal contracting. A section on “Contracting” instructs that “Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with WilmerHale and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract.” Second, agency heads “shall review all contracts with WilmerHale or with entities that disclose doing business with WilmerHale” and then: (1) “take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law... for which WilmerHale has been hired to perform any service”; (2) “otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States [and] with the goals and priorities of [President Trump’s] Administration as expressed in executive actions”; and (3) within 30 days of the Order, submit to OMB “an assessment of contracts with WilmerHale or with entities that do business with WilmerHale effective as of the date of this order and any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order.”

Racial discrimination. A fourth section on “Racial Discrimination” instructs the Chair of the EEOC to “review the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms for consistency with Title VII. The section also instructs the Attorney General to investigate large law firms “who do business with Federal entities for compliance with race-based and sex-based non-discrimination laws.”

Personnel and government buildings. A fifth section on “Personnel” instructs agency heads to provide guidance on “limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of WilmerHale” and “limiting Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with WilmerHale employees,” with the cited goal of “ensur[ing] consistency with the national security and other interests of the United States.” It also states that agency officials shall refrain from hiring WilmerHale employees, absent a waiver from the relevant agency head.

General provisions and Fact Sheet on “rogue law firm.” Finally, a “General Provisions” section of the EO, among other things, mandates that the Order be implemented consistent with applicable law, and a Fact Sheet accompanying the order, largely reiterating the allegations in the “Background” section, additionally characterizes WilmerHale as a “rogue law firm.”

Lawsuit. One day after Trump issued the EO, WilmerHale filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court in D.C., alleging that the EO violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, the separation of powers, and the Spending Clause.

Temporary restraining order and present motions. On March 28, the court granted a temporary restraining order against enforcement of its sections on “Contracting” and “Personnel.” Thereafter, the defendants moved to dismiss, and the WilmerHale moved for summary judgment.

First Amendment retaliation. The court first found that the firm was entitled to summary judgment on its First Amendment retaliation claim. WilmerHale represents a range of clients in litigation, the court found, this advocacy is unquestionably protected conduct under the First Amendment, and the EO, on its face, outlines that the motivations of the Order include the firm’s pro bono practice, its “obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” and its involvement in immigration and election litigation. The EO goes on to impose “a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct,” in the words of the court, and “any one of the sanctions would cause clients to strongly reconsider their engagements with WilmerHale.” Altogether, “the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm’s protected speech,” the court observed. “The Order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm’s ability to effectively represent its clients!”

Viewpoint discrimination. The firm’s First Amendment viewpoint discrimination claim fared similarly. The EO, the court found, “both threatens and imposes sanctions and uses other means of coercion to suppress WilmerHale’s representation of disfavored causes and clients.” Section 4 of the EO, for example, targets WilmerHale for investigation by the EEOC and the Attorney General. “This is the President, in essence, wielding the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the State to punish and suppress WilmerHale’s advocacy,” said the court. The court summarized that “the Order and Fact Sheet make clear that President Trump disfavors WilmerHale’s representation of certain causes and the firm’s statements regarding Mueller. The Order suppresses that disfavored speech by imposing severe sanctions on WilmerHale both directly and indirectly. This viewpoint discrimination is ‘an egregious’ violation of the First Amendment!”

Right to petition. The firm also prevailed on its First Amendment right to petition argument. WilmerHale both alleged and showed, concluded the court, that the EO violates the Petition Clause by (1) punishing the firm for its past representation of clients in litigation and (2) undermining the firm’s ability to pursue litigation in the future.

Freedom of association. Next, the court agreed with the firm that the EO violates the First Amendment freedom of association. It compels “Government contractors to disclose any business they do with WilmerHale” and then instructs agencies to terminate any contracts for which WilmerHale has been hired to perform services and to “otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of [President Trump’s] Administration... ; and as heads of agencies deem appropriate.” This, concluded the court, is “plainly a compelled disclosure of federal contractors’ association with WilmerHale and an accompanying threat of reprisal—cancellation of federal contracts—for that association.” Nor had the defendants explained how a federal contractor’s affiliation with WilmerHale on “any business”—even business unrelated to the contract—is substantially related to defendants’ proffered interests in “ensur[ing] that there is no transfer of taxpayer dollars to entities that engage in racial discrimination” or managing contracts on which WilmerHale is a subcontractor.

Separation of powers. The court next found that WilmerHale was entitled to summary judgment on its claim that the EO is an ultra vires presidential action. The EO, the court found, “sanctions WilmerHale and its attorneys for their conduct before Article III courts,” and “[t]his encroaches on the Judiciary’s exclusive power to sanction attorneys.” The EO “leaves attorneys wary of making certain arguments and representing certain clients for fear of retribution from the Executive Branch,” and this “contravenes the long-standing adversarial nature of our legal system.”

Spending Clause. The EO does not, however, violate the Spending Clause, concluded the court. WilmerHale alleged that the EO violates the Spending Clause by imposing unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts, but the Spending Clause is implicated when Congress imposes a spending or funding Condition, and the firm failed to allege a connection between the EO’s “Contracting” section and a mandate from Congress.

Procedural due process. However, the court found that the EO unlawfully deprives the firm of its protected liberty interest in petitioning the government without notice or an opportunity to respond.

Void for vagueness. The order was also void for vagueness. It failed to provide “fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required,” specifically concerning its directives suspending its employees’ security clearances; ordering federal contractors to disclose their relationships with the firm; and seeking to restrict its employees’ ability to access federal buildings, engage with federal employees, and obtain federal employment. “These directives instruct federal agencies to take punitive, adverse action against WilmerHale and its employees,” said the court, and “[t]he Order does not provide WilmerHale with notice of how it should act in the future to avoid these sanctions.” Indeed, the EO’s “invocation of concepts such as ‘bedrock American principles’ and ‘the interests of the United States’ leave WilmerHale and its employees guessing about how to modify their conduct to avoid the Order’s sanctions.”

Equal protection. The firm’s Fifth Amendment equal protection claim was dismissed because the complaint failed to identify a group of allegedly similarly situated “large law firms” while simultaneously admitting that there are multiple such large firms that have received the same treatment.

Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Its Fifth Amendment right to counsel claim was dismissed because the firm nowhere alleged that its clients are unable to obtain alternative qualified counsel.

Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Finally, WilmerHale prevailed on its Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim, however, because, though the EO “does not directly prohibit criminal defendants from hiring WilmerHale as their counsel,” in the words of the court, “it certainly has that effect!” The Supreme Court, the court noted, has indicated that indirect infringements on the right to counsel of choice can violate the Sixth Amendment, and by barring WilmerHale attorneys from federal buildings, prohibiting their engagement with federal employees, and suspending their security clearances, the EO “effectively prevents the firm’s attorneys from representing their clients in criminal matters.” It also “coerces WilmerHale’s federal contractor clients to choose between their contracts and their engagements—including engagements on criminal matters—with WilmerHale.” These directives, in turn, may “cause the firm’s criminal defendant clients to abandon the firm and seek alternate counsel,” which “some clients have already begun to do.”

Order. Thus, concluding that WilmerHale is entitled to summary judgment on claims alleging that the EO violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment and the separation of powers, the court found that the EO is unconstitutional and issued a declaratory judgment to that effect.

Finding further that the EO is unconstitutional, that the defendants do not have a legitimate interest in enforcing it, and that “courts have power to compel subordinate executive officials to disobey illegal Presidential commands,” the court issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the entire order.

The case is No. 25-917 (RJL).

Judge: Leon, R.

Attorneys: Erin Elizabeth Murphy (Clement & Murphy) for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Richard Lawson, U.S. Department of Justice, for Executive Office of the President.

Companies: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Executive Office of the President

MainStory: TopStory RemediesDamages Retaliation GovernmentContracts FedTracker LaborEmployment DistrictofColumbiaNews GCNNews