Judges Partially Halt Trump’s Orders to Revoke Security Clearances of Law Firms

March 29, 2025 TruthUSA

Both law firms assert that Trump’s directives to revoke their security clearances and terminate contracts are unconstitutional.

On March 28, two judges issued rulings blocking segments of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that mandated the revocation of security clearances for two law firms.

U.S. District Judge John Bates thwarted parts of Trump’s directive aimed at Jenner & Block, which sought to cancel federal contracts related to the firm’s clients and to limit its lawyers’ access to federal buildings and officials.

Bates further indicated that Trump’s order seemed to prohibit lawyers from the firm from entering federal courthouses, which are operated under the federal executive branch.

“Taking into account the widespread impact of the executive order, it endangers the firm’s existence,” Bates stated.

Another U.S. District Judge, Richard Leon, addressing the case concerning WilmerHale, labeled Trump’s order as retaliatory and granted the firm’s motion to block sections of the directive aimed at limiting its access to U.S. government buildings and officials. However, Leon declined WilmerHale’s request to halt a part that suspended the security clearances of any attorneys at the firm.

This week, Trump issued the orders, claiming that the firms participated in actions that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.”

In his ruling against Jenner & Block, he stated that the firm “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports attacks against women and children based on refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and backs efforts obstructing the prevention of illegal aliens committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders.”

In the ruling against WilmerHale, he noted that the firm “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate based on race, obstructs efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs, and contributes to the degradation of American elections by supporting measures enabling noncitizen voting.”

The directive also criticized Jenner & Block for re-hiring Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team from 2017 to 2019.

Mueller had previously conducted an investigation into allegations of cooperation between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russian entities. The investigation ultimately found no evidence of conspiracy to influence the election.

Earlier on March 28, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed lawsuits against Trump regarding the executive orders. The law firms contend that Trump’s directives revoking their clearances and ordering the cancellation of contracts with the federal government are unconstitutional.

The order against Jenner & Block “sanctions Jenner for representing clients in cases opposed to the government, for its past association with an individual who has not been with the Firm for four years but has been critical of the President, and for its hiring practices,” the firm claimed in its lawsuit. “Each of these grounds, individually, is an unconstitutional reason to target Jenner.”

WilmerHale stated in its lawsuit: “The President’s sweeping assault on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional. The First Amendment safeguards the rights of WilmerHale, its personnel, and its clients to speak freely, petition the courts and other governmental bodies, and associate with legal counsel without facing retaliation and discrimination from federal authorities.”

Both lawsuits were submitted to the federal court in Washington.

The firms are requesting the court to declare Trump’s order unconstitutional under the First Amendment and to prevent officials from enforcing it.

“Democrats and their law firms have weaponized the legal process to attempt to punish and imprison their political adversaries,” remarked Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, in an email to The Epoch Times. “The President’s executive orders are lawful instructions to ensure the implementation of the President’s agenda and to guarantee that law firms comply with the law.”

Jenner & Block commended the judge’s ruling, stating it supports the view that the executive order held “no legal weight.”

WilmerHale also expressed appreciation for the court’s prompt action and “recognition of the unconstitutional character of the executive order and its chilling impact on the legal system.”

Deal With Skadden

Simultaneously, on March 28, Trump announced that the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has committed to providing $100 million worth of pro bono legal services.

Trump noted that Skadden will supply pro bono services “during the Trump administration and beyond,” focusing on government-supported causes. These causes include aiding veterans and public servants, advocating for fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism.

According to the agreement, Skadden will not refuse representation to clients such as “members of politically marginalized groups who historically have not received legal representation from major National Law Firms,” as stated by Trump in a Truth Social post.

Trump also mentioned that a pro bono committee will be established “to ensure that pro bono matters align with the program’s goals and that pro bono activities reflect the entire political spectrum.”

Additionally, Skadden will finance law graduates through a fellowship dedicated to supporting these causes and commit to a “merit-based hiring and promotion” approach.

Trump indicated that, as part of the arrangement, Skadden will engage “independent outside counsel” to verify that its employment practices are lawful.

Jeremy London, Skadden’s executive partner, expressed in a statement shared by Trump that the firm has cooperated “constructively” with the Trump administration to finalize the agreement.

“We genuinely believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our team, and our Firm,” stated London.

Trump’s post included a White House announcement highlighting that Skadden had approached the President to express its “strong commitment to putting an end to the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession.”

Another law firm—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss)—also reached an agreement with Trump to provide $40 million in legal services for causes endorsed by the administration.

As part of that agreement, Paul Weiss committed to reevaluating its hiring standards, pledging to a merit-based approach for hiring, promotion, and retention. This agreement ultimately led to the revocation of Trump’s executive order against the law firm on March 20.

Zachary Stieber, T.J. Muscaro, and Reuters contributed to this report.

Source link

Deal With Skadden

You May Also Like

Social Security May Reduce Benefits for Up to 50% of Workers

Biden Denounces Increasing Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the U.S. on Religious Freedom Day

California Poultry Farmer Champions Ethical Farming Practices

Leave a Reply Cancel reply