1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’…

Law Firms

‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’ Judges consider injunction bids by firms targeted in Trump orders

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 10:57 am CDT

Two federal judges sharply questioned a government lawyer Wednesday as they considered bids by Perkins Coie and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to permanently enjoin executive orders that target them and their clients.

“Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era, the Red Scare era?” asked U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., in the Perkins Coie case. Howell was questioning Department of Justice lawyer Richard Lawson, according to Law360.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Law360, include the New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Law.com (here and here).

Lawson argued for the government in the cases before Howell and U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, both of whom are located in the District of Columbia.

Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are among four law firms that filed lawsuits to challenge the executive orders that typically seek the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances; restrict their access to government buildings; and call for termination of government contracts for which the firms were hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Targeted firms have represented clients and worked on causes opposed by President Donald Trump.

Howell asked the “throwback” question after noting a declaration from a former Department of Defense official who oversaw security clearances. He said a blanket suspension of clearances, as called for in the executive orders, “harkens back to the repudiated and discredited programs,” including the Red Scare.

Arguing for Perkins Coie, Dane H. Butswinkas, a partner at Williams & Connolly, said Trump’s actions stem from “the playbook of authoritarianism,” according to Bloomberg Law.

“This is exactly the kind of conduct the Constitution forbids,” Butswinkas said.

Butswinkas said the executive orders targeted lawyers who are no longer with the firms, according to Law.com.

“It sounds more like national insecurity than national security,” he said.

In the hearing before Leon, Lawson said the orders are a valid exercise of executive function rather than punishments for First Amendment activities.

Leon questioned that assertion, Law360 reports.

“It’s pretty clear it’s retaliation,” Leon said, “at least to this court.”

Arguing for WilmerHale, Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy said the executive orders “are a direct and lethal threat to an independent bar,” according to Law360.

“The signal it sends to the whole bar is, ‘Watch out,’” Clement said.

Nine firms have reached deals with Trump to avoid executive orders. The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

Above the Law has created a list of firm actions in response to the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.”

See also:

Revoking security clearances includes due process, which is not being followed, says whistleblower lawyer

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate…

Law Firms

Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate bribery, anti-fraud laws? Democratic letters seek answers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 2:26 pm CDT

Sixteen Democratic lawmakers have sent letters to nine law firms that ask them to disavow deals with President Donald Trump and to answer questions about their legality.

Among the 16 Democrats are two lawmakers leading the effort: U.S. Rep. Dave Min of California and U.S. Rep. April McClain Delaney of Maryland, who are both lawyers, according to an April 24 press release and ABC News.

HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery posted a link to the documents on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The nine firms getting the letters are Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

Firms making the deals pledged to devote millions of dollars in pro bono hours to issues supported by the firms and Trump. Their agreements allowed them to avoid executive orders that, among other things, call for the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances and imperil their clients’ government contracts.

According to the letters, continued performance under the agreements may be unenforceable under contracts law, would have negative effects on the legal system, could expose the firms to civil and criminal liability, and creates potential ethics violations with respect to conflicts of interest and limits on future law practice.

Agreements of this kind “signal acquiescence to an abuse of federal power, raising serious questions about how or whether your firm would represent clients or take on matters that might be seen as antagonistic to President Trump or his agenda,” the letters said.

The letters asked firms to explain whether the deals open themselves up to liability for:

  • Violating federal bribery laws by offering something of value to influence official acts.

  • Aiding and abetting violations of the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to affect commerce by extortion.

  • Violating federal anti-fraud laws that prohibit schemes to defraud the public of the honest services of public officials.

  • Violating the federal law that prohibits participation in a racketeering enterprise.

  • Violating state statutes that ban providing public servants with benefits to influence actions.

The April 24 letters follow inquiries sent to firms from U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who are both Democrats, according to Reuters and an April 22 press release.

The first batch of letters by Blumenthal and Raskin sought more information on attempts made to poach lawyers and clients from one of the targeted firms and asked six firms to retain records pertaining to the executive orders. A second group of letters asked five firms for more information while asserting that their “capitulation” allowed Trump to suppress their speech.

“Your agreement makes you complicit in efforts to undermine the rule of law and to turn private attorneys into President Trump’s personal law firm, ready to do whatever he decides,” Blumenthal and Raskin wrote.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

President Donald Trump won a rare victory at the district court level on Friday when a judge in Washington, D.C., allowed the government to move full steam ahead with a series of executive orders aimed at rooting out “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives.

On Feb. 19, the National Urban League and others sued the Trump administration over several executive orders ending DEI programs in federal government contracts, barring the government from contracting with vendors who have internal DEI programs or that “promote the idea that transgender people exist,” and directing administrative agencies to only recognize “two sexes.”

In the original petition and a later-filed motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs alleged eight provisions in Trump’s anti-DEI orders ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, among other issues.

In a 58-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, rejected those claims, both procedurally and for their legal arguments.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

“For one reason or another, Plaintiffs’ claims are likely to fail,” the judge writes. “Some falter on standing—a prerequisite to success on the merits—and others on the underlying First and Fifth Amendment claims.”

The majority of the court’s opinion strikes a blow for the long-aggressive nature of Article III standing, which is widely understood by legal scholars as “conservative standing doctrine.”

This judicial theory was created in two cases from the 1920s by conservative judges who sought to restrain the use and limits of constitutional redress. In other words, standing doctrine was created – and has over time been honed and sustained – to limit citizens from suing the government over perceived violations of their rights. While technically procedural in nature, as opposed to relying on underlying arguments in a dispute, standing arguments are fact-intensive.

Kelly, for his part, quickly dispenses with how he views the facts in the case brought by the nonprofit organizations.

“For half the challenged provisions, Plaintiffs fail to establish a prerequisite to success on the merits: standing,” the opinion goes on. “Presidential directives to subordinates that inflict no concrete harm on private parties—or at least not on these parties—do not present a justiciable case or controversy.”

In the present case, the judge found many of the challenged provisions had to do with changing the government’s own behavior, and do not result in what, in standing doctrine legalese, is known as an “injury in fact.” This state of affairs, rather, turns the plaintiffs into “at most ‘concerned bystanders’ to internal Executive Branch processes.”

“Everything is intra-governmental,” the judge muses.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘The opposite of diversity is segregation’: Judge castigates Trump over anti-DEI policies, but says he cannot intervene

In sum, Kelly found four of the challenged provisions asked “nothing from Plaintiffs—no compliance, no changed behavior, nothing at all” because those provisions are “not aimed at them” but instead tell “only the agencies to do something.”

For the remaining four challenged provisions, however, the court determined the plaintiffs did, in fact, have standing.

But the court still rejected their arguments as legally deficient.

“Plaintiffs have not shown that the provisions threaten a protected liberty or property interest—a threshold requirement for due process claims,” Kelly’s opinion continues. “And even if they had, Plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge fails for independent reasons. The First Amendment claim, moreover, clashes with two settled rules: the government does not abridge the right to free speech by choosing not to subsidize it, and that right does not permit Plaintiffs or anyone else to violate federal anti-discrimination law.”

One of the major problems, the court says, is that the plaintiffs argued a bit too much, resting their claims on so-called “facial rather than as-applied challenges.”

In lawsuits, government action can be challenged facially, meaning in general, or as-applied, meaning in a specific circumstance.

In the present case, Kelly suggests the plaintiffs would have been better off limiting their claims to more specific problems. Instead, they argued, as the judge framed the issues, that each of the challenged anti-DEI provisions “is unconstitutional in all its applications.”

President Trump’s venture into crypto products has increased his family’s wealth by billions in the last six months, according to a new report, as his administration continues to loosen the federal government’s regulatory approach to the digital currency industry as a whole. 

The group State Democracy Defenders Action estimated in a new report that the president’s crypto holdings now represent nearly 40% of his net worth — or approximately $2.9 billion. That increase is due in part to his release of the $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins, in addition to a large stake in World Liberty Financial, a crypto exchange affiliated with the Trump family that launched in October 2024. State Democracy Defenders Action identifies itself as non-partisan, but it is overseen by frequent critics of President Trump, with an agenda focused on “the autocratic threat to our nation.”

The president’s net worth is expected to get another bump, with World Liberty Financial’s announcement this week that a Abu Dhabi-backed firm will invest billions of dollars in the Trump family-affiliated crypto fund. The Emirati firm, MGX, will purchase $2 billion in a stablecoin product offered by World Liberty, the company said in a statement to CBS. The currency, called “USD1” will then be used to invest in Binance, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges.

World Liberty has ties to the president and his sons. The fine print on the company’s website says an entity affiliated with Mr. Trump and his family members own a 60% stake in the company.

According to the company’s public reports, a Trump family entity also holds 22.5 billion of the $WLF tokens –- and takes an additional 75% in net revenue from future token purchases.

Details of the MGX deal have not been released, so it is unclear how much the Trump family stands to benefit from this transaction.

In a statement to CBS News, World Liberty said the deal represents the “single largest-ever investment in a crypto company” and sets a “historic precedent.” It did not respond to questions about how much the Trump family stands to make from the investment.

The White House responded to a request for comment by telling CBS News to “report on something people actually care about.” A spokesperson provided links to several White House technology initiatives.

As the president’s investments in crypto have grown, the Securities and Exchange Commission has paused investigations into a dozen crypto companies since his inauguration, a CBS News analysis found.

“The bottom line is it appears like he’s profiting off of his public office,” said Virginia Canter, State Democracy Defenders chief counsel for ethics and anticorruption. Canter, who co-authored the new report, served as senior ethics counsel for the Treasury Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations. 

“In terms of prior presidents in the modern age, they’ve all divested their assets, or they’ve rolled them over into what we call blind trusts,” Canter said. “President Trump did not do that in his first term, and it seems as if in the second term he’s doubled down and he is all in (on) the crypto industry.”

The report leans heavily on past media reports, including a Fortune magazine article that reviewed the Trump family’s financial disclosures and provided the original estimates of the president’s net worth.

Crypto companies are not legally required to disclose who is buying and selling on their platforms to the public, so little is known about who has invested in Trump family-affiliated crypto products. 

Canter says this makes it more difficult to identify potential conflicts of interest. 

“In his first administration, we could see who was walking in and out of the Trump hotels,” she said.

Trump hopes U.S. will be the “crypto capital of the world”

The president, who as recently as 2021 described crypto currency as a “scam,” has since embraced digital currency, saying he hopes to make the United States the “crypto capital of the world.”

Since his inauguration, Mr. Trump has made several moves to unwind the regulatory environment that many industry insiders say crippled crypto businesses. 

He has issued multiple executive orders to promote cryptocurrency, including one that seeks to promote the growth of digital currencies and another that instructed the Treasury Department to create a strategic cryptocurrency reserve. 

Mr. Trump has also used his office to pardon the three founders of cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX, who pleaded guilty in 2022 to failing to prevent money laundering on their platform, according to a report by Reuters. 

The value of Mr. Trump’s crypto assets have at times fluctuated with his policy decisions and social media posts.

The value of $TRUMP increased 18.1% in early March after the president issued an executive order promoting a strategic cryptocurrency reserve, according to the report. A few weeks later, on March 23, the president posted “I Love $TRUMP– SO COOL!! The Greatest of them all!!!!” on Truth Social, which led to an increase in the price of the meme coin from $10.93 to $12.24.

Whether or not the $TRUMP coin increases in value, the president’s business collects trading fees when people buy or sell the coin. A Reuters analysis found that business entities behind the $TRUMP coin could have made nearly $100 million in fees in less than two weeks of trading.

World Liberty Finance: The Trump family’s crypto exchange

Aside from meme coins, the Trump family’s more recent foray into cryptocurrency may become its most profitable. 

In October, then-candidate Trump helped launch World Liberty Finance, a decentralized or “defi” cryptocurrency exchange. Its website, which heavily features the president’s image, offers users the opportunity to buy into the exchange using $WLFI tokens. 

“Good News, the World Liberty Financial token is now live. Crypto is the future, let’s embrace this incredible technology and lead the world in the digital economy. Go to World Liberty Financial.com,” Mr. Trump posted on X in October, before the presidential election. 

The website says World Liberty is “inspired by Donald J. Trump” and Mr. Trump is listed as chief crypto advocate. His sons, Eric, Donald Jr. and Barron, are all listed as Web3 ambassadors. 

Donald Trump Jr. promoted World Liberty Financial in March, at the D.C. Blockchain conference, where crypto industry insiders rubbed shoulders with members of Congress and the administration.

“I’m just super excited about what this can mean for the future of banking for the future of financial systems,” said Trump Jr., who joined World Liberty’s panel remotely. Founders Chase Herro, Zak Folkman and Zach Witkoff appeared on stage to promote World Liberty’s stablecoin offering.

“We want Republicans, Democrats, whether it be black, blue, brown, white, to be using our stable coin,” said Zach Witkoff, the son of Steven Witkoff, the White House special envoy to the Middle East. “We think it democratizes finance.” 

World Liberty says it has raised more than $550 million from investors who purchase the $WLF governance token. The majority of these investors remain anonymous to the public. For now, these $WLFI tokens are non redeemable, meaning that once they are purchased, users cannot exchange them. 

World Liberty denied CBS’ multiple requests for an interview.

Justin Sun, the crypto billionaire famous for buying and eating a $6.2 million banana duct-taped to the wall, is one of World Liberty’s few publicly known investors. 

Sun, who was being investigated for securities fraud in the Biden administration, said he invested $30 million shortly after Mr. Trump’s election, at the time claiming in a post on X to be World Liberty’s”largest investor.”

Days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, Sun said he invested another $45 million, which he also disclosed in a post on X. A few weeks later, the Securities and Exchange Commission reversed itself and asked the judge to grant a stay in Sun’s case, citing “public interest.” The pause in Sun’s case was part of a larger push by the SEC to dismiss cases against crypto companies. 

A spokesperson for Sun and the SEC declined to comment. 

Last month, Democrats on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent a letter to the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about the potential for conflict of interest as the Trump administration considers regulations of companies like World Liberty Financial.

“President Trump’s involvement in this venture, as he strips financial regulators of their independence…presents an extraordinary conflict of interest that could create unprecedented risks to our financial system,” said the letter, which was signed by five Democrats, including Senators Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden and Chris Van Hollen. 

World Liberty Financial says 85,000 investors have gone through a standard Know Your Customer process to determine “participation eligibility,” and the company says it is arranging for a third-party accounting firm to audit its new venture into the U.S.-debt-backed stablecoins. 

As president, Mr. Trump is not subject to the criminal conflict-of-interest law. But he is required to disclose his assets and income under the Ethics in Government Act, including his crypto assets. The next financial disclosure report deadline for the president is May 15. 

A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday expressed severe misgivings about the Trump administration‘s efforts to root out “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives, but insisted he had little power to change the current state of play in an ongoing legal battle.

In the underlying litigation, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, a membership organization, won a late February injunction barring the new policies. This initial victory came when U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, a Joe Biden appointee, found that the directives were both unconstitutionally vague and violative of the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

But the victory was short-lived.

On March 14, Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, along with Circuit Judges Pamela Harris and Allison Rushing, granted the government’s request for a stay pending appeal.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The plaintiffs, undeterred, then asked Abelson to vacate his original injunction, citing what the court termed “new factual developments.” This effort was in service of a bid for a new preliminary injunction.

“[T]hey believe that ‘evidence related to agencies’ interpretation and implementation of the Executive Orders’ would further support the likelihood of success on the merits of their already-asserted claims, and further that they ‘could amend their complaint to add new facial claims’ challenging the executive order provisions at issue,” the court explains. “The new ‘facial claims’ Plaintiffs state they may add in an amended complaint would be claims under the Administrative Procedures Act.”

Such an injunction would more or less reset the case – and force the Trump administration to spend several weeks requesting and litigating another stay. And, the plaintiffs argued, even the appellate panel that paused the first injunction would be amenable here.

From the plaintiff’s motion, at length:

The concurrences emphasized that their opinions spoke only to the record so far and that future developments might alter the outcome. In his concurrence, for example, Chief Judge Diaz noted he was satisfied “for now” that Defendants had met their stay burden, but explicitly “reserve[d] judgment on the extent to which the government relies on the Orders’ savings clause provisions as it enforces the Orders’ directives ” …

Similarly, in her concurrence, Judge Harris concluded “for now” that Defendants had met their burden, but offered the “caveat” that “[a]gency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns, for the reasons cogently explained by” this Court.

A coalition of 24 states and Washington, D.C., is suing the Trump administration, claiming that it unlawfully dismantled the AmeriCorps grant program, an independent federal agency that funds volunteer efforts throughout the United States. The lawsuit came in response to billionaire Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cutting the agency’s funding by $400 million and terminating about 85% of its workforce as part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to gut the federal bureaucracy.

States joining the filing include California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Michigan.

In the 69-page complaint, the state attorneys general state that the administration’s stripping of resources is an “unlawful effort to dismantle AmeriCorps” that usurps the power of the legislative branch by rendering the agency ineffective and unable to pursue the goals set forth and funded by Congress.

“The Administration’s abrupt decision to dismantle AmeriCorps flouts Congress’s creation of AmeriCorps and assignment of agency duties; usurps Congress’s power of the purse and thereby violates the Constitution’s separation of powers; and arbitrarily and capriciously — without any reasoned analysis — vitiates the agency’s ability to function consistent with its statutory mission and purpose,” the 69-page complaint states. “It also violates a provision of AmeriCorps’ statutory appropriation that requires the agency to make ‘significant changes to program requirements, service delivery or policy only through public notice and comment rulemaking.’”

The suit asserts that if the Trump administration wants to put an end to the agency, it is “free to ask Congress” to do so, but the executive branch “cannot simply terminate the agency’s functions by fiat or defund the agency in defiance of administrative procedures, Congressional appropriations, and the Constitutional separation of powers.”

“The Executive Branch violates the Take Care Clause where it declines to execute or otherwise undermines statutes enacted by Congress and signed into law or duly promulgated regulations implementing such statutes,” the attorneys general wrote, adding, “The President is without authority to set aside congressional legislation by executive order.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said that Trump and Musk’s actions in “turning away tens of thousands of volunteers who want to serve their communities” were “unlawful,” in a news briefing on the lawsuit Tuesday afternoon.

Lawyers for the families of two children with U.S. citizenship, including a 4-year-old who has Stage 4 cancer, have accused the Trump administration of deporting the youths to Honduras on the same day another child with citizenship was allegedly sent to the Central American country, which led to an order from a federal judge requiring the government to explain itself.

President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, went on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday and insisted that “no U.S. citizen child” had been deported. He claimed that “deported means ordered by an immigration judge” and suggested that the mothers may have chosen to take the children with them, saying: “That’s a parent’s decision. It’s not a government decision, it’s a parent’s decision.”

Reports emerged late Saturday and Sunday from The Washington Post and New York Times saying the 4-year-old and a 7-year-old had also been shipped out Friday with the child that led to the judge’s memorandum in federal court.

As Law&Crime previously reported, a federal judge in Louisiana known for his rulings that tend to align with causes championed by Trump issued a memorandum order Friday setting a hearing to address the apparent deportation of a 2-year-old identified only as V.M.L. According to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a request that court determine whether a person’s detention is unlawful — V.M.L. was born in 2023 in Baton Rouge, as indicated on her birth certificate.

Lawyers for the mother of the 2-year-old told the Times that she and the other two kids were all deported to Honduras Friday. The Times reports that the mother of the 2-year-old is pregnant, while the 4-year-old from the other family has a rare form of late-stage cancer. The boy allegedly had no access to his medications or his doctors during the removal process, the lawyers say.

Gracie Willis, a lawyer with the National Immigration Project who is reportedly involved in the case involving the 2-year-old, has condemned the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and local law officials as being both “horrifying and baffling” as the children are all considered “U.S. citizen” children.

Homan, however, says the government sees things differently.

“Having a U.S. citizen child after you enter this country illegally is not a get-out-of-jail free card,” he told “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

“It doesn’t make you immune from our laws,” Homan said. “If that’s the message we sent the entire world, women are gonna keep putting themselves at risk and come to this country. We send a message. You can enter [the] country illegally, which is a crime. That’s okay. You can have due process, great taxpayer expense. Get ordered removed. That’s okay. Don’t leave. But have a U.S. citizen child and you’re immune from removal? That’s not the way it works.”

Speaking to NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that if the children’s families want them to come back to the U.S. that they will be allowed to “if there’s their father or someone here who wants to assume them” in the United States.

“Ultimately, who was deported … was their mothers, who were here illegally,” Rubio said. “The children just went with their mothers. But it wasn’t like — you guys make it sound like ICE agents kicked down the door and grabbed the 2-year-old and threw him on an airplane. That’s misleading.”

A representative “next friend” of the 2-year-old, who says she has known her since birth, has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block the child’s removal, accusing ICE of engaging in “attempts to disappear” V.M.L. and lying to the child’s family and representatives in the process.

At the time the TRO motion was filed, the girl’s representatives believed she was still in the U.S.

In its opposition to the TRO request, ICE said the girl’s mother wanted to take V.M.L. with her back to Honduras, and provided as proof a note written by hand in Spanish. Just like Homan and Rubio, the government also signaled skepticism that the child’s “next friend,” as well as V.M.L.’s father, were indeed who they said they were, saying they have not provided identification to ICE in support of releasing the child into their custody.

In Friday’s order, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty — appointed by Trump in 2018 — said that V.M.L. is “ostensibly” a 2-year-old United States citizen.

“Of course, ‘It is illegal and unconstitutional to deport, detain for deportation, or recommend deportation of a U.S. citizen,”” Doughty concluded.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump‘s top prosecutor in Washington, D.C., has sent a letter to the nonprofit behind Wikipedia — the free online encyclopedia “anyone can edit,” according to the website — accusing it of “masking propaganda that influences public opinion” and “permitting information manipulation” in benefit of “foreign powers,” the letter says.

Ed Martin, who is the president’s nominee to oversee the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, wrote that the Justice Department would be probing the “content manipulation” to see if Wikimedia Foundation was “engaging in a series of activities” that could violate its “obligations under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code,” which is what ultimately gives the organization its ability to operate as a nonprofit exempt from paying taxes.

“Wikipedia is permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States,” Martin alleged.

“Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia’s ‘educational’ mission,” the interim U.S. attorney said. “In addition, Wikipedia’s operations are directed by its board that is composed primarily of foreign nationals, subverting the interests of American taxpayers. Again, educational content is directionally neutral; but information received by my Office demonstrates that Wikipedia’s informational management policies benefit foreign powers.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Executive orders against firms threaten rule…

Law Firms

Executive orders against firms threaten rule of law, Susman Godfrey says in suit against Trump administration

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 12:39 pm CDT

Updated: Susman Godfrey has alleged in a lawsuit filed Friday that President Donald Trump’s campaign of executive orders targeting the law firm and other well-known firms is an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law.

“The president is abusing the powers of his office to wield the might of the executive branch in retaliation against organizations and people that he dislikes. Nothing in our Constitution or laws grants a president such power,” according to the April 11 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “If a president can with impunity seek to destroy a law firm because of the clients it represents, then the rule of law itself is in grave danger.”

If the executive orders against Susman Godfrey and other firms are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they retaliate against different perceived enemies, the suit says.

“Put simply, this could be any of us,” the suit says.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law are among the publications with coverage.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Tuesday to block sections of the executive order denying access to government property and calling for an end to government contracts in which the firm provides services.

“The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm,” AliKhan said during the hearing, according to a report by Reuters. “And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

Publications covering the ruling, in addition to Reuters, include Law.com and Law360.

Three other firms that sued over executive orders have also obtained TROs.

Susman Godfrey, a firm with 235 attorneys, describes itself as “the nation’s foremost trial firm” in the suit, Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President. Susman Godfrey is represented in the suit by a legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who was the U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration and also was a former Jenner & Block partner.

The April 9 executive order targeting Susman Godfrey alleged that the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” Susman Godfrey is one of the firms that filed a defamation suit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order against Susman Godfrey seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman Godfrey, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman Godfrey employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman Godfrey has been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Trump’s executive order “effectively seeks to create a new condition of government contracting—that contractors not work with Susman Godfrey,” the suit says.

That is an unconstitutional condition that interferes with a First Amendment right to associate and a due process right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, according to the suit, which also cites other alleged constitutional violations.

Susman Godfrey is the fourth firm to sue over executive orders. The others are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie.

Firms that have reached agreements with Trump to avoid executive orders are Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

Updated April 16 at 8:45 a.m. to include information on the temporary restraining order.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Resignations multiply at BigLaw firms that…

Careers

Resignations multiply at BigLaw firms that made deals with Trump

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 16, 2025, 12:04 pm CDT

Associate Rachel Cohen may have been the first lawyer to resign from a law firm because she disagreed with its response to President Donald Trump’s punitive executive orders, but she isn’t the last.

Cohen is one of at least nine lawyers who have left six out of nine firms that reached deals with Trump, according to reporting on resignations by Law.com, the New York Times, Reuters (here and here) and Above the Law.

Cohen was a finance associate in the Chicago office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. She left the firm after it refused her call to support Perkins Coie in its lawsuit challenging an executive order that, among other things, barred its lawyers from government buildings and imperiled its representation of government contractors.

Then when Skadden reached an agreement with Trump to avoid becoming a target, two more associates left.

These nine firms have reached agreements to avoid executive orders similar to the one against Perkins Coie: Skadden; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The deals call for firms to provide pro bono legal services to projects supported by the firms and Trump. The amounts pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

According to the articles, lawyers who left are:

  • Rachel Cohen, who left Skadden (ABAJournal.com, Law.com)

  • Brenna Trout Frey, who left Skadden (ABAJournal.com, Above the Law, Law.com)

  • Thomas Sipp, who left Skadden (ABAJournal.com, Above the Law, the New York Times, Law.com)

  • Sam Wong, who left Latham (Law.com, Reuters)

  • Siunik Moradian, who left Simpson Thacher (Law.com, Bloomberg Law, Above the Law, Reuters)

  • Jacqui Pittman, who left Kirkland (Law.com)

  • Joseph Baio, who left Willkie (Law.com, Reuters)

  • Andrew Silberstein, who left Willkie (Law.com, Reuters)

  • Steven Banks, who left Paul Weiss, where he was the pro bono practice leader. He said he has wanted to leave since the November election to wage a fight for “the things that I have believed in”. He did not specifically mention the firm’s deal with Trump. (Law.com, the New York Times)

The executive orders issued against firms typically seek the suspension of security clearances for their lawyers; restrict access to government buildings by their employees; ban government hiring of firm employees; require government contractors to disclose whether they do business with the firms; and call for termination of government contracts for which firms were hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

In a message to employees, Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp said the firm reached an agreement with Trump to avoid an “existential crisis” that could have destroyed the firm. Even if it mounted a successful legal challenge, Karp said, its clients would still perceive the firm as “persona non grata with the administration.”

Four firms have sued over executive orders issued against them. They are Perkins Coie, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. All have obtained temporary restraining orders blocking parts of the executive orders.

Perkins Coie lost the vice chair of its government contracts practice after the firm sued. That lawyer, Alexander Canizares, is departing to become co-leader of the government contracts practice at Vinson & Elkins. Canizares told Reuters that he began talking to Vinson & Elkins “quite a while ago.”

Above the Law has published a “BigLaw Spine Index” that lists how firms have responded to the Trump administration.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.