The Society for the Rule of Law Institute has released the following statement on Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms:

The Society for the Rule of Law Institute welcomes reports that the Administration has dropped its blatantly unconstitutional executive orders punitively targeting law firms which had represented the president’s political rivals or otherwise drawn his displeasure. As the Institute argued in multiple amicus briefs, these orders violated the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment and threatened the separation of powers by attempting to limit access to the courthouse door.

While the initial reports were apparently directly confirmed in DOJ emails sent to the litigating law firms, evidently there was a devil in the details. More recent news indicates that something or someone intervened to change course so the Administration may now, instead, seek to claw future appellate debacle from present judicial defeat. However the course of this litigation may or may not proceed, we commend the honorable law firms who stood up for their constitutional rights and all of ours.

Each of the law firms that challenged the unconstitutional orders prevailed in court dramatically. The judges ruling for the law firms did not mince words. As Judge Loren L. AliKhan wrote, “The Order goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The Order threatens the independence of the bar– a necessity for the rule of law.” Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 1:25-cv-01107, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. June 27, 2025). The Executive Orders targeted law firms not for any violations of the law or the public interest, but in retaliation against any firms who represented parties whom the Administration disliked. In a ruling in favor of Jenner & Block LLP, Judge John Bates writes, “This Order… makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed.” Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-01012, slip op. at 1 (D.D.C. May 23, 2025).

Judge Richard J. Leon best captured the unprecedented nature of these Orders in his ruling in favor of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP.

“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence… in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence.” Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 1:25-cv-00917 (D.D.C. May 27, 2025) (Leon, J.), Mem. Op. at 1.

The Executive Orders were a brazen assault against not only the Administration’s perceived enemies, but also against the fundamental tenets of due process itself. They were among the first attempts by this administration to corruptly use the machinery of government to reward friends and punish critics. Regrettably, they were far from the last. The Society for the Rule of Law Institute will continue to oppose all such attempts by this administration or any other.