ABA Sues Trump Administration Over Targeting of Law Firms

The American Bar Association (ABA) initiated legal action against the Trump administration, contesting the constitutionality of President Trump's efforts to penalize law firms. This lawsuit joined several other suits filed by targeted firms against the government.

The lawsuit specifically challenges a series of presidential orders. These orders directed the government to revoke security clearances, contracts, and access to federal buildings for some of the nation's largest law firms. The orders often cited the firms' representation of pro bono clients, their association with Mr. Trump's legal adversaries, or their engagement in diversity, equity, and inclusion practices that the administration deemed discriminatory.

Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the suit contends that Mr. Trump violated the First Amendment by leveraging the executive branch to coerce lawyers and law firms into abandoning clients, causes, and policy positions that the President opposed.

The ABA's lawsuit highlights agreements made by several law firms, which pledged substantial pro bono work to causes favored by the administration to avoid future government targeting. The suit also argues that the Trump administration's actions have created a "chilling effect," discouraging law firms from taking on pro bono cases that contradict the administration's agenda, particularly in immigration-related matters.

The ABA claims to have experienced this chilling effect, stating that it has struggled to find law firms willing to represent it in pro bono cases. The organization has previously clashed with the Trump administration, including a Justice Department decision to restrict staff attendance at ABA events and criticism of the ABA's diversity policies. The ABA had previously sued the government over training grant cutoffs, arguing it was being punished for protected speech, which led to a judge blocking the policy.

The lawsuit seeks a federal court declaration that Mr. Trump's orders are unconstitutional and an injunction preventing the administration from taking similar actions. The suit warns that if the administration's actions are allowed, future administrations could similarly suppress dissent based on policy disagreements.

Multiple law firms targeted by the Trump administration have sued over the orders, resulting in injunctions from federal judges. In one ruling, a judge blocked the government from targeting Perkins Coie, stating that Mr. Trump's order conveyed the message that lawyers must conform to the administration's views.

Other firms have reached agreements with the administration, promising to undertake mutually agreed-upon pro bono work. These deals have sparked controversy within the legal community, with critics arguing that the firms are capitulating to the government. Supporters of the deals argue that the firms were placed in an untenable position and risked significant losses if they challenged the government.