ABA Lawsuit Against Trump: Claims, Judge Ali’s Ruling, and Status

The American Bar Association’s lawsuit against the Trump administration challenges what the ABA calls a coordinated “Law Firm Intimidation Policy”: a series of executive orders, contract cancellations, and public threats aimed at punishing law firms for representing disfavored clients or taking disfavored positions. The case, American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, was filed June 16, 2025, in federal court in Washington, D.C., and cleared a major hurdle on March 31, 2026, when Judge Amir H. Ali denied the government’s motion to dismiss and allowed the ABA’s constitutional claims to proceed.¹

What the ABA Is Challenging

Between March 6 and April 9, 2025, the administration issued executive orders targeting five firms by name: Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey.² Each order carried a nearly identical set of sanctions: suspending security clearances held by firm personnel, terminating government contracts, restricting access to federal buildings and officials, and banning the hiring of firm employees into federal positions.¹

The orders also included accusations aimed at each firm. The Perkins Coie order called the firm “dishonest and dangerous,” citing its work for the 2016 Clinton campaign and voting rights cases. The WilmerHale order said the firm had “abandoned the profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice.” The Jenner & Block order accused the firm of having “condoned partisan ‘lawfare.'”¹

The ABA’s complaint reaches beyond those five firms. It alleges that at least nine additional firms entered into agreements with the administration under threat of similar sanctions. Paul Weiss, which had initially been named in an order, reached a deal that included acknowledging “wrongdoing” by a former partner, adopting a “policy of political neutrality,” and committing $40 million in pro bono legal services for administration-aligned causes. Skadden agreed to at least $100 million in pro bono work. Willkie Farr, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader each committed to pro bono arrangements ranging from $100 million to $125 million.³

The ABA treats the punitive orders and the coerced settlements as one policy, designed to control which clients lawyers will represent and what positions they will take.

The Constitutional Claims

The complaint rests on two constitutional foundations. The First Amendment claim has several parts: government coercion aimed at suppressing disfavored speech, viewpoint discrimination against lawyers and firms, and infringement on the rights to petition the government and to associate freely. The separation-of-powers claim argues that intimidating lawyers into refusing cases against the federal government undermines the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power.⁴

The ABA seeks a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional and an injunction barring its enforcement.⁴ The complaint names more than 70 defendants, including the Executive Office of the President and over two dozen federal departments and agencies.⁵

The Chilling Effect the ABA Describes

The complaint describes a chill “of blizzard proportions” across the legal profession, alleging that many firms have stopped taking work that involves challenging the federal government. Even firms never named in any executive order are reportedly “lying low,” declining to represent public-interest organizations in litigation against the administration for fear of becoming the next target.⁶

The ABA says it has been directly affected. It alleges it has been forced to forgo litigation of its own because the lawyers who would normally take that work will no longer accept it given the “peril of crossing the federal government.” The complaint quotes a Wall Street Journal report stating that White House officials deliberately keep the threat of new executive orders active because they believe it “dissuades the best lawyers from representing critics of the administration.”⁶

ABA President William R. Bay, who led the organization when the suit was filed, called the policy an “unprecedented challenge” to the rule of law.⁴ His successor, Michelle Behnke, who took office in August 2025, called the case “crucial to defending our members’ rights to represent clients of their choice and the public’s right to secure counsel of choice.”⁷

The Government’s Defense

The administration has offered two levels of justification. Publicly and in appellate filings, it said the orders addressed “racial discrimination” in law firms, “national security risks,” and the alleged “weaponising” of the legal system against the president and his allies.⁸ A March 2025 presidential memorandum cited national security, homeland security, public safety, and election integrity, and directed the attorney general to seek sanctions against firms engaged in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation” against the government.⁹

In its August 2025 motion to dismiss, the Department of Justice called the ABA’s complaint based on “total speculation” and said the administration was “not waging an intimidation campaign against U.S. law firms.” The government argued the ABA lacked standing and that the claims were not ripe.¹⁰

Judge Ali’s Ruling Allowing the Case to Proceed

On March 31, 2026, Judge Amir H. Ali denied the government’s motion to dismiss. He found the ABA had plausibly alleged “a realistic threat of sanctions” sufficient for standing, rejecting the government’s characterization of the policy as speculative. The court pointed to the complaint’s detailed allegations of “specific, coordinated executive actions with ‘materially identical’ sanctions” imposed on firm after firm, which went beyond any “nebulous assertion.”¹

On the chilling effect, Judge Ali wrote that “the complaint details at length the chilling effect the alleged policy has had on firms and lawyers, with specific allegations that firms have declined to take on matters, including those that challenge administration policies and that involve representation of the ABA itself.”⁷ The ruling matters because it lets the ABA challenge the whole policy in one case, not just any single executive order.

What Happened to the Individual Firm Orders

The five firms targeted by name split into two camps. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey each sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and federal judges blocked or struck down every order. The most prominent ruling came in May 2025, when Judge Beryl Howell granted summary judgment for Perkins Coie and declared Executive Order 14230 unconstitutional, calling it an “unprecedented attack” on the judicial system and finding violations of the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees, and the right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.¹¹ Judge Loren Alikhan granted Susman Godfrey a temporary restraining order on April 15, 2025, ordering the government to treat the enjoined portions of the executive order “as if they had never issued.”¹²

Paul Weiss and Skadden went the other direction and settled. Paul Weiss committed $40 million in pro bono work for administration-favored causes and agreed to eliminate its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Skadden promised $100 million in pro bono services and created a committee to align its work with administration objectives.¹³

The government’s appeals of the district court rulings striking down the four orders took an unusual turn in early March 2026. On the evening of March 2, the DOJ moved to voluntarily drop the consolidated appeal, with all parties in agreement. Less than 24 hours later, the department reversed itself and filed to withdraw its dismissal request, saying only that the court had not yet formally granted the dismissal and that the firms would suffer “no prejudice.” No further explanation was given.¹⁴ The appeals remain active before the D.C. Circuit, and ABA lawyers point to the reversal as evidence that the threat to law firms is ongoing.¹⁵

A Separate ABA Lawsuit Over Cancelled Grants

The intimidation case is not the only litigation between the ABA and the Trump administration, and the two are easily confused. On April 23, 2025, the ABA filed a separate suit, American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice (Case No. 1:25-cv-01263), after the DOJ terminated five grants totaling $3.2 million that funded the ABA’s Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence.¹⁶ Judge Christopher Cooper granted a preliminary injunction on May 14, 2025, finding the government’s stated reason for the terminations “pretextual” and the ABA likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim.¹⁷ The government did not appeal, and the case was administratively closed on July 18, 2025.¹⁸ That case is finished; the intimidation-policy case is the one still active.

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, the main ABA lawsuit is still in relatively early stages. Judge Ali’s March 31, 2026, ruling cleared the case to proceed on the merits, but no trial date has been set and the court has not yet ruled on the substance of the constitutional claims.⁵ The government’s appeals of the individual firm rulings remain pending before the D.C. Circuit, leaving open the possibility that those orders could be revived.⁸ The ABA’s position is that whatever happens with any single order, the pattern requires a comprehensive judicial remedy addressing the policy as a whole.

1
Clearinghouse.net. American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President
2
FindLaw. American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, Civil Action No. 25-01888
3
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary (Minority). Letters to Law Firms on Trump Administration Agreements
4
American Bar Association. ABA Files Suit to Halt Government Intimidation
5
CourtListener. American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, 1:25-cv-01888
6
Just Security. ABA Complaint, Case 1:25-cv-01888
7
Bloomberg Law. ABA’s Trump Law Firm Intimidation Policy Suit Gets Greenlight
8
International Bar Association. Trump Administration Maintains Chilling Effect With Defence of Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms
9
The White House. Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court
10
Law360. DOJ Challenges ABA’s Standing in Law Firm Intimidation Suit
11
CourtListener. Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 770 F. Supp. 3d 190
12
Susman Godfrey LLP. TRO Order, Case No. 25-cv-01107-LLA
13
NBC News. DOJ Drops Suits Against Law Firms After Judges Find Executive Orders Unconstitutional
14
Jurist. DOJ Reverses Decision to Voluntarily Withdraw Appeal in Law Firms Case
15
NBC News. Trump Administration Reverses Course, Seeks to Continue Battle With Law Firms
16
Courthouse News Service. ABA Rips Feds Over Domestic Violence Grant Termination
17
Jurist. US Federal Court Blocks DOJ From Canceling Grants to National Lawyers Association
18
Democracy Forward. Restoring Funding for ABA Services That Support Domestic and Sexual Violence Survivors