New York Times
Federal judges dealt twin blows to President Trump’s retaliation campaign on Friday by issuing temporary restraining orders blocking much of his executive orders targeting two major law firms that participated in investigations of him, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale.
The rulings barred the administration from carrying out punishments described in the executive orders, like banning their lawyers from government buildings, meetings, or jobs.
Mr. Trump went after Jenner & Block because the firm once employed a lawyer who became part of the special counsel team that investigated Mr. Trump in his first term. But Judge John Bates of Federal District Court in the District of Columbia took issue with Mr. Trump’s order because it also punished the firm for its pro bono work, a common feature of many large law firms to provide legal representation to unpopular or poor clients.
Judge Bates said he found that action “disturbing” and “troubling.”
Shortly after Judge Bates’s ruling, another judge in the same courthouse, Richard Leon, issued a similar temporary restraining order against a Trump executive order targeting a different firm, WilmerHale, where Robert S. Mueller III worked before and after he served as special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation.
The judges let stand the parts of the president’s orders stripping security clearances from lawyers at the firms.
Jenner & Block and WilmerHale had filed lawsuits in federal court in Washington earlier Friday. Now they and a third firm, Perkins Coie, have won initial victories in court.
There is, however, an emerging divide in the legal industry, as it grapples with how to respond to Mr. Trump’s multifaceted attack on firms he accuses of acting unethically. In particular, he has sought to punish firms that have employed lawyers who also once worked on investigations and prosecutions of him. Some have tried to reach deals with him, drawing condemnation from others in the field.
Earlier Friday, President Trump said the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom would provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports, heading off an expected executive order akin to those he aimed at the other firms.
“This was essentially a settlement,” Mr. Trump said. “We appreciate Skadden’s coming to the table, as you know other law firms have likewise settled the case. It’s a shame what’s gone on.”
The White House has signaled that more firms are in the president’s cross hairs, particularly those that employ lawyers who have worked on investigations into Mr. Trump or on causes that his supporters object to.
An executive partner of Skadden, Jeremy London, said in a statement that the firm “engaged proactively with President Trump and his team in working together constructively to reach this agreement,” adding that it looked forward to a “productive relationship.” He continued, “We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm.”
The president also issued a statement from the firm, in which it declared a “strong commitment to ending the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession.”
Skadden Arps chose to follow a path similar to that of another large firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison in cutting a deal, rather than fighting in court.
The president’s campaign against major law firms, fueled by his anger against lawyers whom he personally blames for his legal troubles, has sent shock waves through the profession and led to an intense debate among lawyers about whether to fight on principle or negotiate.
The Skadden Arps deal suggests negotiating may be getting more costly. Paul Weiss said it would provide $40 million in pro bono work, while the Skadden Arps agreement more than doubled that amount. The deals have also been met with scathing criticism by those in the legal community who see them as unnecessary capitulation in cases where the firms have the law on their side.
On Thursday, after news broke that Skadden was seeking to strike a deal with the Trump administration, a group of alumni — all part of the law firm’s prestigious public interest fellowship program — began to circulate a letter. It urged the firm’s leadership to “take every measure to resist unlawful interference with the rule of law, to fight any unjust actions” and “to speak publicly about the critical, nonpartisan role of lawyers in defending democracy,” according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The New York Times.
The letter, which organizers hope to deliver to Skadden’s leadership, has gathered nearly 400 signatures, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Trump said Skadden Arps would provide legal services to veterans, members of the military and law enforcement, first responders, and state and local government officials. Their pro bono work, the White House said, would also involve legal issues surrounding antisemitism, and that in general, its pro bono work will “represent the full political spectrum.”
For months, the president has railed against firms that he said refused to represent conservatives or their causes. His executive orders are intended to force them to do so.
According to a fact sheet issued by the White House, Skadden Arps “will not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups, who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms” because of the political views of the firm’s lawyers.
On Wednesday, the president boasted about his track record of bringing big law firms to heel.
“They’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much,’” Mr. Trump said, adding that they were asking, “‘Where do I sign? Where do I sign?’”
Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Ben Protess contributed reporting from New York.
Devlin Barrett covers the Justice Department and the F.B.I. for The Times. More about Devlin Barrett
