The American Bar Association is taking the Trump administration to court over a series of executive orders targeting several of the nation’s largest law firms—a move the organization says it hopes will protect other lawyers and firms from further attacks by federal officials.
In an 85-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 16, the ABA names 70 agencies and Trump administration officials, accusing them of implementing a “law firm intimidation policy.” The effort, the ABA says, violates law firms’ First Amendment rights, oversteps the president’s constitutional authority and deliberately chills work by lawyers across the profession on matters they fear might trigger government retaliation.
The ABA’s case follows court actions that have stopped Trump’s orders against several firms from taking effect.
Still, ABA President William Bay told The New York Times the lawsuit is necessary to protect lawyers who are not party to those cases and who may not have the resources to fight the federal government. “We’re standing up for them,” Bay said. The case is also unlikely to endear the ABA to top Trump officials, many of whom had already attacked the organization prior to the lawsuit over perceived liberal bias.
Why Firms Were Targeted
President Trump’s executive orders targeted law firms and individual lawyers who worked on matters at odds with administration officials and Trump’s allies.
This has included, according to the ABA’s complaint, a broad array of lawyers and firms that fought challenges to the 2020 election, sought to vindicate the rights of immigrants, women and LGBTQ+ individuals, were involved in investigations or prosecutions of Trump, donated to causes the administration opposes or challenged current administration policies, “or who engaged in other disfavored forms of expression,” such as advocating for diversity in the legal profession.
Trump suspended lawyers’ security clearances, blocked access to government buildings, prevented the government from hiring law firm employees and required federal agencies to terminate contracts with the firms and with companies doing business with those firms. He also accused the firms of using diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs to illegally discriminate against employees and launched a regulatory probe into hiring practices at several major firms.
Trump’s chief purpose, the ABA argues, was “not merely to punish but to intimidate and coerce.” The executive orders “are intended to cripple each targeted law firm’s business,” the ABA says, and “to extract hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of legal services in support of the President’s preferred policies from firms seeking to avoid being [the administration’s] next target.”
Indeed, Trump struck deals with nine large firms, extracting promises of nearly $1 billion in administration-supported pro bono work and to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Four other firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—decided to fight back and have won injunctions to halt the executive orders from taking effect.
Susman’s Role
The ABA is relying on one of those firms—Susman Godfrey—to lead its fight against the administration. Its case was filed by Stephen Shackleford, a New York partner at the firm. He was joined on the complaint by Susman partners Beatrice Franklin and Jillian Hewitt in New York; Neal Manne, Barry Barnett, Harry Susman and Justin Nelson in Houston; Davida Brook in Los Angeles; and Jordan Connors, Steve Seigel and Katherine Peaslee in Seattle.
Susman Godfrey has run afoul of Trump because of its role as counsel on behalf of Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit against Fox News following the 2020 election. Shackleford, Nelson and Brook led the legal team that negotiated a $787.5 million settlement in 2023 over Fox’s false claims that Dominion’s voting machines helped throw the presidential race to Joe Biden.
In his April 9 executive order against Susman Godfrey, Trump blasted the firm for spearheading “efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.”
A week later, the firm won a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration. It is now seeking a permanent injunction. In a statement following the court order, Susman said the executive order targeting the firm was unconstitutional “because it infringes on the rights of all Americans and the rule of law.”
Susman lawyers are making similar arguments in the ABA case. They claim Trump violated the First Amendment by suppressing and threatening retaliation for protected activities and are relying, in part, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 unanimous decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo. In that decision, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, justices found government officials may not make “coercive threats aimed at punishing or suppressing disfavored speech.”
The firm also argues that Trump and the administration are discriminating against lawyers and firms based upon their viewpoints, hampering their constitutional rights to petition the government, using unprovable and overbroad arguments to curtail First Amendment rights and punishing firms and their clients for exercising their rights to associate freely with others—including opponents of the administration. In addition, Trump’s actions usurp congressional authority, they argue, thus violating the separation of powers doctrine.
A Chilling Effect
The administration’s orders are having a chilling effect on firms, the ABA argues. Even when they have not been directly targeted by the administration, firms and lawyers are avoiding matters that might offend Trump administration officials. In its complaint, the organization cites accounts from four anonymous ABA members who are grappling with the fallout from Trump’s orders.
One is a member of the executive committee at an Am Law 50 firm who reports that concerns about the loss of government access have pushed partners to revamp the way their firm accepts pro bono work. According to the ABA complaint, the firm recently rejected a matter that would have been “adverse to the administration’s immigration-related policies,” a decision driven by “the firm’s credible fear of retaliation by the president.”
A litigation firm, worried it could be the target of an executive order, has spent considerable time and money creating an internal team to research and draft emergency papers, hiring outside counsel for potential litigation and engaging a communications specialist to help the firm respond should it face an attack, a partner and member of the firm’s executive committee told the ABA.
At another firm, a litigator who serves as outside counsel to a nonprofit organization that is preparing to challenge the administration’s immigration policies says an Am Law 100 firm that had been working on the case is now refusing to appear as counsel for fear of retaliation by Trump administration officials.
And at a fourth firm, lawyers said they are concerned they will face punishment or retaliation because they have worked on behalf of clients opposed to administration policies. They point to the case of Amir Makled, a U.S. citizen and Michigan attorney, who was detained in April by U.S. Customs and Border Protection while returning home from a Caribbean vacation with his family. Makled, whose phone was searched, has represented a student charged in connection with a pro-Palestinian protest at the University of Michigan.
Direct Impact
The ABA also says that the organization has been harmed directly by the administration’s actions, because firms—fearing retaliation—are backing away from ABA-backed pro bono matters that may challenge administration policies. In one immigration-related case, “the ABA was unable to participate as a party in the litigation in significant part as a result of its inability to obtain its choice of counsel on the timeline required,” the complaint said.
And a major law firm that has represented the ABA on law school accreditation and litigation matters since the 1980s, said it was no longer willing to take on “political issues disfavored by the current administration and amicus briefs related to issues affecting the mission and policy of the ABA,” the complaint said.
The ABA has been engaged in a multi-front fight with the administration almost from the moment Trump was sworn in for another term.
Federal agency heads have banned political appointees from holding leadership positions in the ABA, participating in or attending the organization’s events, or renewing any existing memberships. Trump issued an executive order in April directing the Department of Education to determine whether the federal government should strip the ABA of its status as an accreditor. The ABA has also challenged the Department of Justice over decisions to halt federal grants to the organization.
On May 29, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration would not allow the ABA access to information about judicial nominees, undercutting the organization’s traditional role in vetting judge candidates.
Seeking Relief
The case, American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President (1:25-cv-01888), has been assigned to D.C. Circuit Judge Amir Ali. The ABA is asking the court to declare Trump’s orders unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin the government from enforcing them.
“The law firm intimidation policy is unlawful,” the ABA said in its complaint. “Our Constitution does not vest the executive branch with the power to point to individual lawyers or law firms, declare by executive fiat that their work or their internal policies are ‘against the national interest’ or otherwise illegal or improper, and direct (or threaten) executive action against that lawyer or law firm.”
The government has not yet filed a reply to the suit.
--
David L. Brown is a legal affairs writer and consultant, who has served as head of editorial at ALM Media, editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal and Legal Times, and executive editor of The American Lawyer. He consults on thought leadership strategy and creates in-depth content for legal industry clients and works closely with Best Law Firms as senior content consultant.
