DC Court holds Order against law firm unconstitutional

The federal District Court for the District of Columbia (Richard J. Leon) has found that a Trump Executive Order suspending security clearances of attorneys at the Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr law firm, terminating governmental contracts with the firm or with contractors retaining the firm for legal work, investigating it for discriminatory practices, and limiting its lawyers’ access to federal buildings is unconstitutional.  The Court said it violated the First and Fifth Amendments and the Spending Clause of the Constitution.

As an introduction to a lengthy opinion the Court wrote: “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 directly challenging these fundamental rights.  Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case.  For the reasons set forth below, 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!”

The Court has held that the Order was in violation as “retaliation for protected speech.”  It also held that the Order violates the First Amendment protection of the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” by interfering with the firm’s ability to purse litigation and the First Amendment right of free association. The Court found that the Order violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment both because it was issued without notice and because it was void for vagueness about the conduct that is forbidden or required.

The case attracted more than 30 amicus briefs, primarily in support of the law firm.  (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door v. Executive Office of the President, D. DC, No. 25-917, 5/27/25.)