“The first thing we do, let’s chill all the lawyers.”
The original line from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part 2” is often wheeled out to take a swipe at the legal profession. But in the play, it’s uttered by a violent rebel intent on dismantling civil society. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens interpreted it as a warning: “Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”
Lawyers make easy targets. But freedom and protection of individual rights depend on their efforts to uphold the rule of law, check government overreach, and defend the unpopular. If you’re being prosecuted, suing the government for violating your rights, or challenging an unconstitutional law, you need a lawyer. And you shouldn’t have to worry about whether intimidation from the federal government will prevent you from getting one.
That’s why President Trump’s ongoing retaliation against law firms for representing clients or causes he opposes should concern all Americans, regardless of their political beliefs. It not only violates the First Amendment but also undermines access to vigorous legal representation, especially for anyone up against those in power.
This moment is bigger than one firm or one case. It’s about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the fundamental principles it upholds.
What did these firms do to draw the president’s ire? Here’s a sample from his executive orders targeting them:
- Perkins Coie represented “failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,” hired a company that produced “false” opposition research on Trump’s campaign, and “worked with activist donors” to challenge voter ID laws in court.
- A Paul, Weiss partner brought a lawsuit against protesters at the Capitol on January 6.
- Jenner & Block conducted pro bono work challenging Trump’s executive orders restricting immigration and withholding federal funding for medical institutions that perform gender transition procedures for minors.
- WilmerHale pursued pro bono litigation related to immigration, voting, and race-based college admissions policies.
The executive orders Trump issued in response to these actions are transparent about his intention to crack down on the firms as a result of their First Amendment-protected activities.
The orders slap the firms with a range of sanctions — revoking security clearances, canceling government contracts, and denying access to federal buildings and employees when such access would, among other things, “be inconsistent with the interests of the United States” (whatever that means).
For firms representing clients who advocate before, contract with, or are in disputes with the federal government, these sanctions are a gut punch, cutting off access and/or critical information they need to effectively do their jobs.
Not only that, the orders direct federal agencies to require federal contractors to disclose any business they have with the blacklisted firms, pressuring anyone who has (or might in the future have) business with the government to dissociate from those firms.
You don’t need to feel sympathy for large law firms — or support the clients or causes they represent — to see the danger in a president abusing his authority to bend the legal system to his will. Trump isn’t just punishing these firms — he’s chilling legitimate advocacy and eroding the core principle that everyone has a right to legal representation. That’s bad news for the rule of law and protection of individual rights.
Lawyers are not their clients, and they don’t have to adopt their clients’ views to zealously advocate for them. But Trump’s reprisals are making lawyers think twice about representing anyone who challenges him or the policies he supports.
It’s also far from clear this crackdown will stop with big firms. Could small and/or public interest firms be next?
Some may note the administration has also accused the targeted firms of violating employment discrimination laws. But there are established legal processes for fairly and transparently investigating and adjudicating those allegations. The president doesn’t get to decide by fiat that a company or person broke the law and impose whatever penalties he wants. That’s a flagrant violation of due process. And the administration’s concerns about civil rights violations don’t erase its primary stated reason for punishing the firms — their advocacy and potential viewpoints.
FIRE and coalition partners file brief rebuking the U.S. government for attempting to deport Mahmoud Khalil for his protected speech
Press Release
Khalil’s arrest is an affront to the First Amendment and the cherished American principle that the government may not punish people based on their opinions.
Read More
Even if you share the president’s dim view of Big Law, consider that his actions set a dangerous precedent that will outlast his administration. A future president might not share Trump’s view of what constitutes “destructive causes” or what activities “limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles.” In the future, perhaps lawyers who represented Republican politicians, challenged mail-in voting procedures, or defended abortion restrictions will face retribution instead.
Trump’s plan to cow firms into submission is paying off — in part. Multiple firms have made deals with the administration to avoid sanctions. Paul, Weiss was the first to cave, making commitments that included $40 million in pro bono legal services for causes the president supports. Other firms are preemptively falling in line. Skadden and Willkie Farr each pledged $100 million for the same.
Two days ago, Milbank followed suit. In response, Trump posted on Truth Social, “The President continues to build an unrivaled network of Lawyers, who will put a stop to Partisan Lawfare in America, and restore Liberty and Justice FOR ALL.” He’s not just trying to stop firms from doing work he doesn’t like — he’s pressuring them to do work that advances his political agenda.
Fortunately, not every firm is willing to be shaken down. Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale are challenging Trump’s unconstitutional executive orders in court, and have all secured temporary restraining orders blocking enforcement of the executive orders.
Yesterday, FIRE joined a broad coalition led by the ACLU to file an amicus curiae — “friend of the court” — brief supporting Perkins Coie’s lawsuit.
Our brief explains that the First Amendment prohibits the government from retaliating against lawyers for the clients they represent or the arguments they make. What’s more, the administration’s actions strike directly at the independence of the legal profession and threaten to unravel America’s deeply rooted commitment to individual rights.
As we said in our brief, “If allowed to stand, these pressure tactics will have broad and lasting impacts on Americans’ ability to retain legal counsel in important matters, to arrange their business and personal affairs as they like, and to speak their minds.”
Today, the chorus grew louder as more than 500 law firms signed onto a separate amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie’s legal battle. That type of collective defense of America’s core values is exactly what’s needed.
This moment is bigger than one firm or one case. It’s about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the fundamental principles it upholds.
