Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that the White House and dozens of federal agencies are orchestrating an unconstitutional campaign of “blizzard proportions” to intimidate lawyers and law firms.
The lawsuit, filed on June 16 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the Trump administration has adopted a “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” that violates First Amendment protections for free speech and association, viewpoint discrimination, the right to petition the government, and the separation of powers.
“This is the time to stand up, speak out and seek relief from our courts,” ABA President William Bay said in a statement. “There has never been a more urgent time for the ABA to defend its members, our profession and the rule of law itself.”
The suit, which seeks to block enforcement of the alleged policy, names the Executive Office of the President, more than two dozen federal departments and agencies, and their top officials. The United States is also named as a defendant in a bid to ensure that any relief would apply governmentwide, including any federal agencies not specifically listed as defendants.
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has issued a number of executive actions targeting major law firms, including moves like revoking security clearances at Perkins Coie or canceling federal contracts with Susman Godfrey, arguing these are necessary to prevent abuses of the legal system and federal courts.
“President Trump believes that lawyers and law firms must be held accountable when they engage in illegal or unethical conduct, especially when their misconduct threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity,” states a White House fact sheet detailing the rationale behind some of Trump’s actions with respect to law firms.
One example of “egregious conduct” raised in the fact sheet is the involvement of a former Perkins Coie attorney in “creating a false ‘dossier’ to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” describing such behavior as “too common in the legal profession.”
In 2016, while representing then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie played a role in commissioning the Steele dossier, which made now-discredited claims that Trump had colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
The White House fact sheet also alleged that some law firms undermined immigration enforcement by coaching clients to lie about their past or their circumstances when applying for asylum.
However, the ABA’s complaint alleges that Trump’s actions are based not on substantive factors related to national security or election integrity but because these law firms have represented clients or policy positions he opposes.
“The President’s attacks on law firms through the Law Firm Orders are thus not isolated events, but one component of a broader, deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the President does not like,” the 93-page filing states.
The ABA argues that the Trump administration’s measures against the law firms—including suspending security clearances, blacklisting firm employees for government jobs, and restricting access to federal buildings—aim not only to punish but to deter legal representation that challenges the administration, creating a chilling effect across the legal profession.
The complaint describes how several prominent firms—including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and others—were singled out in public remarks and official directives. Some orders were later rescinded after firms agreed to provide pro bono legal services aligned with administration priorities or modify their client selection and attorney hiring policies to align with the president’s agenda, the suit claims.
In one case cited in the lawsuit, Trump agreed to drop his executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the law firm pledged to drop diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies—including in hiring—and pledged to provide $40 million in free legal services to support some of the administration’s initiatives. A number of law firms—including Milbank, Latham & Watkins, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher—have entered into similar settlements, each involving a promise to drop DEI and offer pro bono work.
Some other law firms—such as Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—sued the Trump administration after being named in executive actions. In those cases, federal courts struck down some or all of the executive orders involved.
The ABA said the policies continue despite those rulings.
“News reports and studies already show that most top firms are lying low, trying to avoid being hit with similar executive orders,” the complaint states.
In response to the lawsuit, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that it views the suit as frivolous and the president’s authority to pick which law firms get government contracts or security clearances as legitimate and lawful.
“The American Bar Association’s lawsuit is clearly frivolous,“ Fields said. ”The President has always had discretion over which contracts the government enters into and who receives security clearances. His exercise of these core executive functions cannot be dictated by the ABA, a private organization, or the courts. The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue.”