ABA amicus brief supports law firms targeted by executive orders

April 02, 2026

ABA amicus brief supports law firms targeted by executive orders

CHICAGO, April 2, 2026 - The American Bar Association has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in support of law firms that successfully challenged the constitutionality of executive orders targeting the firms for their representations of certain clients and causes disfavored by the current federal administration.

The brief outlines the ABA's policies opposing government efforts to punish lawyers for representing disfavored clients or causes, its support for lawyers' First Amendment rights, and its support for judicial regulation of attorney conduct. The brief argues that the executive orders "violate lawyers' freedom of speech, impermissibly retaliate against lawyers for First Amendment-protected activities and infringe lawyers' associational rights." It explains how those First Amendment violations have harmed lawyers' ability to represent clients.

The brief also argues that the executive orders violate separation of powers by allowing the executive to sanction lawyers for conduct related to litigation occurring before courts, which have exclusive authority to regulate such conduct.

"The ABA appreciates the efforts of the law firms who are fighting the government's unconstitutional efforts to punish lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes the government disfavors," ABA President Michelle A. Behnke said. "Lawyers must be free to represent any client, and the public must be able to freely choose the representation they want without worrying about government interference or retribution."

The case arises from a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in early 2025. The orders directed government agencies to take a number of adverse actions against the targeted firms, including ordering the attorney general to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at the firms and limiting official access by the firms to federal government buildings.

Perkins Coie LLP was the first firm to file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the executive order aimed at it and seeking injunctive relief. The district court granted summary judgment to Perkins and enjoined the federal government from "implementing or enforcing" the executive order in any way. The court held that the executive order infringed the firm's First Amendment rights, violated the Equal Protection Clause by imposing restrictions without a rational basis and deprived Perkins of due process by providing no notice or opportunity to be heard before imposing restrictions.

Three other law firms - WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey - subsequently filed suit in the same district court, challenging similar executive orders issued against them. Those cases were assigned to three other judges, who also held the executive orders against those firms unconstitutional.

The federal government appealed in all four cases, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated all four appeals and also ordered them to be set for argument and decision by the same panel that will consider an appeal involving an individual attorney's challenge to the denial of a security clearance.

A copy of the filing may be found here. James A. Feldman and Stephen B. Kinnaird prepared and filed the brief pro bono on behalf of the ABA.

For more information, contact Shanda Ivory at [email protected].