Can the Executive branch weaponize executive orders to punish private law firms for exercising their First Amendment rights? This case arose after the Trump Administration issued four retaliatory Executive Orders (“Orders”) targeting attorneys at Susman Godfrey, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. The four private law firms undertook public advocacy projects and represented clients who opposed the administration’s policy agenda. Among other restrictions, the Orders revoked the firms’ access to federal buildings, ordered federal agencies to sever relationships with the firms, and limited the firms’ access to federal resources. In 2025, the D.C. District Court found the Orders unconstitutional in all four cases, and the government appealed. Currently, the four cases have been consolidated and are on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Women Lawyers on Guard Action Network, Inc. joined a coalition of organizations and bar associations arguing that the Orders violated fundamental constitutional protections and undermined the integrity of the legal profession. The brief contends that the Orders not only stripped the four firms of their First Amendment rights by punishing them for their public opinions and client representation, but also significantly interfered with the justice system. Specifically, the brief explains that allowing the Executive branch to issue retaliatory executive orders would limit advocacy and dissuade lawyers from taking on certain clients or pro bono projects, which are central to the legal profession. Additionally, enforcing the Orders would disrupt the function of an independent judicial branch, which is vital to sustain checks and balances.
On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument, and as of July 2026, a decision is still pending.
To read the amicus brief, please click here.
