A coalition of 22 state attorneys general in filing amicus briefs supporting two prominent law firms—Jenner & Block LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP—as they challenge controversial executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump that imposed punitive measures on the firms for representing causes disfavored by his administration.
In a strong rebuke of the orders, Attorney General Platkin condemned the actions as “outrageous, unprecedented, and unconstitutional.”
“Targeting law firms and attorneys for doing their jobs and representing their clients is not only a violation of the Constitution—it’s an attack on the rule of law and our democratic values,” New Jersey Matthew J. Platkin said in a statement. “President Trump’s unlawful executive orders seek to intimidate lawyers into never crossing him in court or otherwise. But the President and his team will not intimidate us.”
“Targeting and sanctioning law firms for representing clients that the president disagrees with is unconstitutional and undemocratic,” said New York Attorney General James. “The right to counsel and free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, and no president can take that away on a whim. I am proud to stand with these law firms as they courageously challenge these unconstitutional Executive Orders and defend the rule of law.
The executive orders, issued during Trump’s presidency, instructed federal agencies to suspend active security clearances held by individuals at the targeted law firms, deny their personnel entry into federal buildings, refuse future engagement or hiring of employees from those firms, and demand that federal contractors disclose relationships with the firms to potentially sever ties.
The coalition’s legal briefs, filed in two separate cases—Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President—support the firms’ ongoing efforts to permanently block enforcement of the orders. Both law firms previously secured temporary injunctive relief from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The attorneys general argue that the executive orders represent a dangerous abuse of presidential authority and threaten the independence of the legal profession. The briefs emphasize that these retaliatory actions could dissuade attorneys from taking on clients or cases that challenge government power—a fundamental aspect of a healthy democracy and functioning judiciary.
“These orders don’t just punish law firms—they chill access to justice for countless Americans,” said Platkin. “They send a message that if you represent someone the government doesn’t like, your career, your livelihood, and your rights are at risk.”
“In our country, clients have a right to legal representation regardless of their political party,” Chicago – Attorney General Kwame Raoul said. “Consistent with this foundational principle, law firms should not be retaliated against simply because the president does not like their clients. I will continue to support the rights of individuals to obtain counsel, and the rights of attorneys and law firms to provide robust representation for their clients regardless of the politics that surround the case.”
The coalition also noted that the orders could especially harm vulnerable populations by restricting access to pro bono legal representation, further widening the justice gap.
In addition to New Jersey, the coalition includes attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The effort was co-led by Attorneys General Kwame Raoul (IL), Andrea Campbell (MA), and Nick Brown (WA), alongside Platkin.
Both lawsuits remain active, with federal judges expected to rule on whether the temporary injunctions will be made permanent in the coming months
