Four Law Firms Seek to Uphold Rulings Blocking Executive Orders

In briefs they filed on Friday, March 27, 2026, four law firms urged the District of Columbia Circuit to uphold decisions by lower courts blocking Executive Orders issued against them.

Citing the positions taken by the firms in providing pro bono representation, ties to attorneys who investigated him and other justifications, President Trump issued Executive Orders imposing penalties on Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey and Perkins Coie.  The penalties included stripping firm attorneys of security clearances, limiting firm attorneys’ access to government buildings and threatening to terminate federal government contracts.  Nine other firms entered into agreements with the White House to avoid being targeted by Executive Orders.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the Executive Orders, ruling that they were unconstitutional, retaliatory and violated First Amendment Rights.  The Court ruled that the Executive Orders “usurp[ed] Judiciary authority”, were a “shocking abuse of power” and were “unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers.”

In its briefing, WilmerHale argued that the Executive Order targeting it was “riddled with constitutional defects.”  “The executive order singling out WilmerHale for its protected expression and advocacy is a direct assault on (among other things) the First Amendment, core separation-of-powers principles, and our adversarial justice system," WilmerHale argued in its filing.

"Our Constitution forbids the government from retaliating against lawyers based on the clients they represent and the people with whom they associate," Jenner & Block stated in its brief.  "The executive orders challenged here defy this fundamental precept."

In early March, the government moved to dismiss its appeal of the District Court rulings, but withdrew the filing a day later. In its opening brief filed on March 6, the Department of Justice argued that the District Courts "bent over backwards" to invalidate the executive orders, which it said were "well within the presidential prerogative."