A conservative federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump’s executive order punishing a law firm tied to his political opponents “must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,” dealing yet another blow to the president’s retaliatory campaign against lawyers and legal groups that opposed his agenda.
“Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the founding fathers!” wrote Judge Richard Leon in Washington D.C.
Leon’s colorful 73-page opinion uses 27 exclamation points — including in the very second sentence — and compares Trump’s executive order against the law firm WilmerHale to a gumbo that gives him “heartburn,” whose recipe he included.
“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting,” wrote Leon, who was appointed by George W. Bush.
“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,” he added.
But nearly 250 years later, “several executive orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence” within the last few months, Leon wrote.
Trump’s executive orders single out individual firms that worked for prominent Democratic officials or represented causes he opposed while imposing punitive measures on the law firms like banning their employees from federal buildings and stripping their security clearances.
Several firms arranged deals with the Trump administration — including agreeing to perform millions of dollars in pro-bono work — to avoid the president’s sanctions.
WilmerHale had previously employed former special counsel Robert Mueller, who returned to the firm after leading the investigation into whether Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election to boost Trump’s chances of winning.
The firm also represented Democrats against Trump’s 2020 election challenges, members of Congress seeking his tax records, and inspectors general who sued Trump after they were abruptly terminated at the start of his administration, among others.
In his order on March 27, Trump claimed the firm “abandoned the profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.”
The order accuses so-called “Big Law” firms of actions that “threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles.”
In his order, Judge Leon slammed the administration for throwing “a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!”
He added: “Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm’s protected speech! It both threatens and imposes sanctions and uses other means of coercion to suppress WilmerHale’s representation of disfavored causes and clients.”
Leon said Trump’s executive order is clearly “motivated by the president’s desire to retaliate against WilmerHale for its protected activity.”
This is “not a legitimate government interest, and the order’s unsupported assertion of national security will not save it!” he wrote.
In a footnote in his ruling, Leon said Trump’s executive order is “akin to a gumbo.”
Sections of the order outlining sanctions against the firm “are the meaty ingredients—e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters,” Leon wrote.
“But it is the roux … which holds everything together,” he added, pointing to the president’s justification for attacking the firm.
“A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together,” Leon wrote. “This gumbo gives the Court heartburn.”
Several federal judges in recent days have struck down similar orders.
Last week, District Judge John Bates, another Bush appointee, blocked a near-identical order targeting the firm Jenner Block after finding it was clear retaliation for the firm’s employment of Andrew Weissmann, whom Trump accused of making a career out of “weaponized government and abuse of power.”
“Like the others in the series, 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,” Bates wrote.
Another federal judge is currently weighing a decision in a similar case against Trump’s order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey.
