In recent developments in Washington, the Justice Department has communicated to federal agencies that they can choose to disregard a judicial halt on a White House executive order aimed at a prominent legal firm. This came after U.S. District Judge John Bates issued a temporary injunction against parts of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump. The order targeted Jenner & Block by restricting access for its employees to federal buildings and instigating a review and potential termination of federal contracts with the firm and its clients.
This executive action is part of a series of similarly phrased orders against several notable law firms by the Republican president. While some firms have pursued legal action, others have reached agreements to avoid sanctions from the Trump administration.
In a letter addressed to agency leaders, Attorney General Pam Bondi, alongside White House budget director Russell Vought, sharply criticized Judge Bates, describing him as an “unelected district court judge” interfering in the executive branch’s policy-making and free speech rights. The letter emphasized that agencies retain the discretion to engage in business as usual, implying a level of autonomy to choose partnerships.
The letter further stated that the Executive Branch stands by Executive Order 14246, deeming it a necessary policy. It underscored the government’s option to employ all lawful measures concerning ‘lawfare,’ national security issues, and discriminatory practices linked to Jenner & Block.
Interestingly, this stance from the Justice Department seems to contradict Judge Bates’ directive ordering the Trump administration to instruct federal agencies to disregard extensive sections of the executive order. Notably, the executive order’s clause that suspends the active security clearances for Jenner & Block employees was not contested and remains valid.
This letter surfaced late Tuesday as part of a Justice Department report regarding the ongoing litigation involving Jenner & Block. This firm, along with WilmerHale—another entity under a similar order—has petitioned federal judges for a permanent injunction against the enforcement of these directives.
The origin of the executive mandate against Jenner & Block traces back to its former association with Andrew Weissmann, an ex-attorney from Robert Mueller’s special counsel team probing Trump’s alleged ties with Russia during the 2016 election. Trump frequently criticized Weissmann publicly, although he departed Jenner & Block several years prior.
Although Mueller retired from WilmerHale, another executive directive targeted him, a retired partner, and a current partner who also contributed to Mueller’s team.
Beyond Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, the executive orders have also implicated other firms such as Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. Paul Weiss, encountering a corresponding executive order last month, negotiated a resolution with the White House, prompting the order’s withdrawal. Meanwhile, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, along with Millbank and Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, have finalized settlements with the Trump administration before a potential order could take effect against them.
With legal proceedings ongoing, this situation underscores the broader tension between the judiciary and the executive’s broad interpretation of policy enforcement and legal actions against notable law firms.