Legal industry strikes back: Trump faces revolt over Perkins Coie crackdown

The American legal profession is witnessing an extraordinary collective pushback as more than 500 law firms join forces to support Perkins Coie in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump‘s administration. The legal challenge follows a controversial executive order issued by Trump on March 6, 2025, which directly targeted Perkins Coie, accusing it of unethical practices and disqualifying the firm from federal contracts. The order also sought to revoke security clearances of its attorneys and restrict their access to federal properties.

The order has been widely interpreted by legal experts as retaliation against Perkins Coie’s past work, particularly its association with the Democratic National Committee and voting rights cases that were seen as oppositional to Trump’s political objectives. Perkins Coie responded swiftly with legal action, alleging that the order was not only punitive but unconstitutional, threatening the independence of the legal profession and due process rights.

This escalating legal conflict has triggered a wave of solidarity across the legal industry, with 504 law firms signing an amicus brief in defence of Perkins Coie. The brief argues that the executive order represents a grave threat to the rule of law and constitutional norms. It was spearheaded by Donald Verrilli, a former U.S. Solicitor General under the Obama administration, alongside prominent Chicago-based attorney Nathan Eimer.

How are top law firms reacting to political pressure from the Trump administration?

While the show of support has been widespread, the response from the legal elite has been more reserved. Notably, none of the 20 largest U.S. law firms chose to sign the amicus brief, highlighting the pressures and risks of becoming a visible opponent to presidential directives. Industry insiders suggest that many of these firms are weighing the reputational risk and potential for lost business against the ethical imperative to defend constitutional protections.

Several firms appear to have taken a more pragmatic route. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, another top-tier legal firm, was subjected to a similar executive order just days after the one targeting Perkins Coie. The Trump administration accused the firm of engaging in practices contrary to national interest. Rather than contesting the action in court, Paul Weiss reportedly settled by agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services aligned with the administration’s favoured causes, including veterans’ rights and anti-discrimination initiatives.

This move has sparked an industry-wide debate. While some view it as a necessary compromise to avoid protracted legal challenges and client loss, others warn that such settlements risk legitimising executive overreach and encourage further politicisation of legal services.

What constitutional issues are at the heart of the lawsuit against Trump’s executive orders?

The legal arguments against Trump’s executive orders centre on fundamental constitutional concerns. Perkins Coie’s lawsuit contends that the administration’s actions violate the First Amendment, which protects freedom of association and expression, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Legal scholars note that punishing a firm based on its past client representation or political associations could set a dangerous precedent, undermining the principle that every party—regardless of their political stance—is entitled to legal counsel.

Historically, the independence of the legal profession has been a cornerstone of democratic systems. Legal representation in politically sensitive cases is often unpopular, yet essential for a functioning justice system. The Nixon administration’s actions during the Watergate era drew similar criticisms when it sought to undermine attorneys representing adversaries. This current legal battle has revived those comparisons, with many seeing echoes of past attempts to intimidate or discredit the legal system when it stands in opposition to the executive branch.

The amicus brief signed by the 504 law firms reinforces this argument by stating that the president’s actions threaten to transform legal representation into a loyalty test, which would have a chilling effect on the ability of law firms to represent clients involved in cases with political implications.

What role is the judiciary playing in balancing executive power and legal independence?

The courts have quickly emerged as a critical battleground in this standoff between the Trump administration and the legal community. A federal court has already issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the key enforcement elements of the executive order against Perkins Coie, citing serious concerns over its constitutionality and the immediate damage it could inflict on the firm’s business and reputation.

This intervention is being closely watched by the legal and political establishment as a litmus test for the judiciary’s willingness to rein in presidential authority when it appears to encroach on professional independence and constitutional safeguards. Legal analysts point out that while executive orders are a legitimate tool of presidential governance, they are subject to legal review and must adhere to constitutional limitations.

If courts ultimately side with Perkins Coie, it could reaffirm the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power. Conversely, a ruling in favour of the administration could embolden further actions targeting organisations or individuals perceived as political adversaries.

How is this legal confrontation shaping the future of law firm independence?

This legal confrontation is becoming a defining moment for the U.S. legal sector. Law firms are being forced to confront a stark reality: aligning with constitutional principles could come at the cost of political backlash and client attrition. For firms representing politically sensitive clients, there is a growing fear that neutrality and professional obligation may no longer shield them from administrative retaliation.

The wave of support for Perkins Coie—despite the absence of the biggest firms—shows a strong undercurrent of resistance within the legal community. Many smaller and mid-tier firms are signalling that they are unwilling to accept a redefined professional landscape in which legal counsel becomes contingent on political acceptability.

There are also broader implications for pro bono work and public interest law. If firms begin to shy away from politically charged cases for fear of administrative scrutiny, this could narrow access to justice for communities and individuals already facing systemic barriers. Lawyers committed to upholding civil rights and challenging government overreach may find it harder to secure institutional support.

This episode may also alter how firms approach client selection and risk management in the years to come. Legal industry observers believe that more firms may establish internal protocols for handling politically exposed clients, similar to the due diligence used in compliance matters. Simultaneously, law schools and bar associations are likely to reemphasise the ethical obligations of lawyers to represent all clients without fear or favour.

The events unfolding around the Trump administration’s executive orders and the legal community’s response are more than a temporary clash between politics and law. They represent a test of the profession’s resilience and its commitment to constitutional values. As litigation proceeds and judicial opinions begin to take shape, the stakes extend far beyond the courtroom. The ultimate outcome may determine not just the future of Perkins Coie or Paul Weiss, but the broader integrity and independence of American legal practice in an increasingly polarised political environment.