For the second time in as many weeks, a federal judge has ruled that one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting specific law firms is unconstitutional.
Senior U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a 73-page memorandum opinion on Wednesday finding that an executive order signed by President Trump on March 27, entitled “Addressing Risks from WilmerHale,” violated the First Amendment rights of the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale).
The executive order, similar to others issued by President Trump, accused WilmerHale of “conduct detrimental to critical American interests” and aimed to restrict its employees from serving in the federal government. WilmerHale filed a lawsuit challenging the order as unconstitutional, prompting the government to seek a dismissal. The case was ultimately decided on motions for summary judgment.
Judge Leon’s opinion emphasized the crucial role of an independent bar in the American justice system, stating, “The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. 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. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights.”
The judge directly criticized President Trump’s attacks on WilmerHale and other law firms, concluding, “I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!” Judge Leon used an unusually high number of exclamation points (27) in his opinion to underscore the severity of the constitutional violations.
Similar to a previous executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block LLP, which was also enjoined by a federal judge last week, President Trump’s order criticized WilmerHale for employing former special counsel Robert Mueller and lawyers who worked on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Judge Leon noted the order’s numerous references to Mueller and his investigation as clear evidence of an attempt to infringe upon the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
“Trump disfavors WilmerHale’s representation of certain causes and the firm’s statements regarding Mueller,” the opinion stated. “The Order suppresses that disfavored speech by imposing severe sanctions on WilmerHale both directly and indirectly. This viewpoint discrimination is ‘an egregious’ violation of the First Amendment!”
Judge Leon further explained that President Trump’s focus on the Mueller investigation was part of a broader pattern of viewpoint discrimination in his attacks on law firms. The court also found that the order violated WilmerHale’s First Amendment right to petition the government, noting that “Filing and pursuing lawsuits are forms of protected petitioning.” WilmerHale successfully argued that the executive order punished the firm for past litigation on immigration and electoral issues and undermined its ability to pursue future litigation by revoking security clearances and limiting access to federal buildings and employees.
While the government argued a national security justification for limiting access, Judge Leon deemed this assertion to be conclusory and unsupported by specific evidence. He wrote, “[T]he Order does not explain how WilmerHale’s conduct has threatened national security or how restricting its access to federal buildings or federal employees would remedy those threats. Instead, and as I have already found, the Order is plainly 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!”
The court also ruled that a provision in the order requiring all government contractors to disclose any business with WilmerHale violated the firm’s right to free association. Judge Leon expressed confusion regarding the link between this disclosure requirement and the government’s stated aim of preventing “racial discrimination,” finding no logical connection.
Despite dismissing three of WilmerHale’s eleven claims on procedural grounds, Judge Leon’s ruling to enjoin the entire executive order renders these rejections largely inconsequential. He concluded, “The Order is unconstitutional, and thus defendants do not have a legitimate interest in enforcing the Order. In fact, it is ‘obvious’ that the ‘enforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public interest.’ Enjoining the Order serves the public interest by, for example, eliminating an obstacle to free speech and preserving the independent and adversarial nature of our judicial system.”
Be First to Comment