Both law firms say it is unconstitutional for Trump’s order to cancel clearance and termination agreements.
On March 28, the two judges blocked some of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that directed the two law firms to revoke security clearances.
US District Judge John Bates has blocked some of Trump’s orders targeting Jenner & Bullock, which attempted to cancel federal contracts held by company clients and restrict access to attorneys’ federal buildings and officials.
Bates also said Trump’s order appears to ban corporate lawyers from entering federal courts controlled by the federal administration.
“It threatens the company’s existence, given the executive order’s overall impact,” Bates said.
Another US District Judge Richard Leon handled the Wilmerhell case, calling Trump’s order retaliation and granted the company’s request to block some of the directives aimed at restricting access to U.S. government buildings and officials. Leon denied Wilmer Hale’s request to block sections that have stopped security clearances held by company lawyers.
Related Stories
The order also criticized the rehiring of former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, Jenner & Brock, who was on the legal team of former special advisor Robert Mueller from 2017 to 2019.
Jenner & Block and Wilmerhale sued Trump over the executive order on March 28th. The two law firms said Trump’s order will revoke clearance and direct officials to end their federal contracts.
Both legal actions have been filed in federal court in Washington.
The corporation asked the court to declare Trump’s orders in violation of the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment, and ordered officials to implement the order.
“The Democrats and their law firms armed legal proceedings that would punish and imprison their political opponents,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields told the Epoch Times via email. “The President’s executive order is a legitimate directive to ensure that the President’s agenda is implemented and that the law firm complies with the law.”
Jenner and Bullock praised the judge’s decision, saying the executive order supports the notion that “does not hold legal weight.”
Wilmerhale also thanked the court for its prompt action and “awareness of the unconstitutionality of the executive order and its calm impact on the legal system.”
Addressing Skadden
Meanwhile, Trump said on March 28 that law firms Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom had agreed to provide free legal services worth $100 million.
Trump said Skaden will provide “between the Trump administration” and “between the Trump administration” for government-supported causes. These include supporting veterans and other civil servants, ensuring fairness in the judicial system and fighting anti-Semitism.
Trump said the Pro Bono Committee would be created “to ensure that the Pro Bono issue is consistent with the objectives of the program and that the Pro Bono activity represents the full political spectrum.”
Skadden will also fund law alumni under fellowships dedicated to supporting causes and commit to a “met-based employment, promotion and retention” policy.
As part of the contract, Trump said Skaden will be involved with “independent external lawyers” to ensure that employment practices are governed by the law.
Skaden’s executive partner Jeremy London said in a statement shared by Trump that the company had worked “constructively” with the Trump administration to reach an agreement.
“We firmly believe that this outcome is in the greatest profits of our clients, our people and our company,” London said.
Trump’s post also included a White House statement that Skaden approached the president and expressed his “strong commitment to ending the arms of the judicial system and legal profession.”
Another law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss), has signed a contract with Trump to provide $40 million in legal services towards the administration-backed causes.
Zachary Stieber, TJ Muscaro, and Reuters contributed to this report.
