Appeals Judges Press Trump Bid to Revive Orders Against 4 Law Firms
Updated
Updated · POLITICO · May 14
Appeals Judges Press Trump Bid to Revive Orders Against 4 Law Firms
12 articles · Updated · POLITICO · May 14
Three federal appellate judges signaled deep skepticism Thursday as they heard the Trump administration’s effort to restore executive orders that stripped security clearances from lawyers at four major firms.
Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli argued the clearance revocations are effectively beyond judicial review, comparing the president’s authority to the pardon power even when motives are challenged.
Paul Clement, arguing for the firms, said the orders were wielded publicly to pressure Big Law into compliance, pointing to deals under which nine firms pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono work favored by the administration.
Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey already won lower-court rulings blocking the orders, and the administration’s appeal drew unusual attention with more than 100 lawyers, judges and clerks attending in Washington.
The case has become a broader test of whether presidents can use security-clearance powers to punish perceived political adversaries in the legal industry.
How does this battle over executive orders reshape business risks for all companies holding federal contracts?
Can the legal profession remain independent when lawyers are targeted based on their clients' identities?
Where does a president's security power end and the constitutional rights of private firms begin?
Trump’s 2025–2026 Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms: Constitutional Crisis, Judicial Pushback, and the Fight for Legal Independence
Overview
After President Donald Trump began his second term in January 2025, he issued executive orders targeting major law firms as part of a broader campaign against perceived critics, which also included revoking security clearances. These actions quickly faced strong legal challenges in federal courts, where judges rigorously questioned the administration’s justifications. The legal profession became deeply divided, with some firms choosing to fight the orders in court and others settling under pressure. This conflict has raised serious concerns about executive overreach, the independence of the legal profession, and the future balance of power between the branches of government.