A federal judge granted Wilmerhale’s request to reduce the executive decree of President Donald Trump targeting the law firm, judging the unconstitutional order.
The main judge Richard Leon of the District of the American District Court of Columbia rendered a summary judgment in the law firm instead of carrying out a full trial. “Indeed, governing otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the founding fathers!” He wrote in a notice Tuesday.
Wilmerhale argued that the order had violated its right to the first amendment to represent customers of its choice and violated the constitutional guarantees of regular procedure and equal protection.
“The court’s decision to definitively block the illegal decree in its entirety strongly affirms our fundamental constitutional rights and those of our customers,” said a spokesperson for Wilmerhale in a statement. “We are proud to defend our business, our people and our customers.”
THE order had asked the federal agencies to limit interactions with Wilmerhale lawyers and potentially cancel government contracts with customers of the law firm. These punitive measures and others were linked to the company’s relations with Robert Mueller, who was a special prosecutor investigating the Trump campaign links with Russian officials.
In a categorical opinion which used at least 26 exclamation points, Leon said that the order had to fall in its entirety, comparing it in a footnote to a “gombo” pot which gave it “stomach burns”.
The cabinet brought 11 counts in his complaint, and the judge ruled in his favor on most of them, including the four citing the protections of the first amendment against the order.
These charges argued that the order was reprisals for a protected expression, represented the discrimination of points of view and obstructed its rights to petition the government and the free association.
“Taken together, the arrangements constitute an amazing punishment for the protected discourse of the company!” Leon wrote. “The order is intended to and in fact hinder the capacity of the company to effectively represent its customers!”
Wilmerhale has lost its argument according to which the order violated the expenditure clause by imposing unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts. But the judge said the order was late enough to dissuade other companies from taking positions similar to Wilmerhale.
“The order screams through a megaphone: if you take disadvantaged causes by President Trump, you will be punished!” Leon wrote.
He wrote that the president “exercised his power to punish a law firm for having initiated disputes, the president was personally disadvantaged” and that the planned effect of the order was to “chase the customers of Wilmerhale”.
Order, like similar by Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, had been temporarily crossed out March 28. A judge on May 2 permanently canceled an order targeting Perkins Coy.
Nine other large law firms, including Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, have chosen to settle with the Trump administration rather than facing or fighting such orders, which some companies have described as potentially existential threats. These law firms accepted Provide nearly a billion dollars In the “Pro Bono” legal services which are pleasant to the Trump administration, among other concessions.
Wilmerhale is represented by Paul Clement and Erin Murphy de Clement & Murphy. Clement was previously Solicitor General General and pleaded more than 100 cases before the United States Supreme Court.
The case is: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP c. Executive Office of the PresidentDDC, 1: 25-CV- 00917, 5/27/25.
