Update on Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP’s Support of Law Firms Fighting Trump Executive Orders

June 30, 2025

Back in April, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP signed on to an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, alongside 500 other firms, in support of a lawsuit filed against President Donald Trump for his attack on law firms. The case, filed by the law firm Perkins Coie in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenged an executive order that sought to impose sanctions on the firm for “conduct detrimental to critical American interests.”

Since that first brief, SMW—along with over 800 other law firms— joined amicus curiae briefs for three additional lawsuits filed by the law firms WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. These firms also sought to strike down similar targeted executive orders issued by the Trump Administration.

President Trump claimed in these executive orders that the listed firms were weaponizing the justice system. For example, the President declared that WilmerHale and other firms took actions that “threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles.” The orders referenced Perkins Coie’s representation of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block’s hiring of prosecutors involved in the Mueller Report—the investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election—and affirmative action policies as justification for sanctions against the firms.

However, as the amicus curiae briefs explained, the orders ultimately subjected entire firms to “draconian punishment” solely because they were representing their clients and engaging in pro bono work. These punishments included the revocation of security clearances, denial of access to federal buildings, and the potential loss of clients that contract with the United States. Although SMW is not a direct target of these orders, the firm believes they undermine the rule of law, which “depends upon zealous advocates litigating each side of a case with equal vigor.”

Since these cases were filed, every judge presiding over these lawsuits has decisively rejected President Trump’s executive orders targeting individual law firms.

On May 2, 2025, Judge Beryl A. Howell issued a scathing opinion in the lawsuit brought by Perkins Coie against the Trump Administration, tossing out the executive order. She wrote that the unconstitutional order was an “unprecedented attack” on the American judicial system’s “fair and impartial administration of justice” by independent lawyers.

Judges John D. Bates and Richard J. Leon followed in late May and struck down the executive orders targeting Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, respectively. Judge Bates ruled that the orders were “doubly violative of the Constitution” and sought to “chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers.”

Judge Leon observed that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was ratified, no executive order had ever directly challenged the “fundamental rights” of independence within the judiciary and the legal profession. The judge also reiterated that allowing the order to stand would be “unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers.”

Finally, on June 27, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan ruled in favor of Susman Godfrey in the final outstanding lawsuit brought by the law firms. Judge AliKhan used similar strong language to the other judges, noting that President Trump’s executive order that targeted the firm was “unconstitutional from beginning to end.”

The fight against these executive orders is not over. There is a chance that the U.S. Justice Department will appeal the decisions striking down Trump’s executive orders. The Trump Administration may pursue other orders or policies that threaten the independence of lawyers. SMW plans to continue standing with others in the legal profession in fighting back against these attacks on the rule of law by the President.

By Kyle Bradley, law clerk