The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s crackdown on the legal profession, casting President Trump’s various executive orders as a “Law Firm Intimidation Policy.”
The First Amendment suit, nearly 100 pages long, argues that Trump’s targeting of firms has created a chilling effect among all firms, regardless of whether they’ve signed deals with the administration.
“The result of the Law Firm Intimidation Policy has been a pervasive fear within the legal community and the justice system at large. Many attorneys are no longer willing to take on representations that would require suing the federal government because doing so poses a serious risk of becoming the next target of the administration’s devastating sanctions,” the ABA wrote in a press release announcing the lawsuit.
“This blizzard-like chill on the profession has continued even after firms challenging their own executive orders have won repeated court victories. Those victories only protect those firms. The ABA has filed this action to protect all its members.”
Since taking office, Trump signed multiple firm-specific executive orders that scrapped security clearances for lawyers of some firms and barred their attorneys from entering federal buildings — something numerous firms said would be damaging to their business.
He also signed another order pledging sanctions for firms that bring “vexatious” litigation — a pathway to go after nonprofits as well as larger law firms that provide pro bono legal services in causes that may run afoul of the Trump administration, such as those challenging his immigration policies.
Firms that have challenged their targeting under Trump have been on a winning streak in court. But another nine have signed deals with Trump, collectively agreeing to do nearly $1 billion in pro bono work for causes championed by the president.
The ABA suit described Trump’s policies as “working as designed.” It said it is limiting pro bono work, including by firms that signed deals with Trump and now do not want to run afoul of the White House.
“Even as federal judges have ruled over and over that the Law Firm Orders are plainly unconstitutional, law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes—including causes championed by the ABA—have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the Administration, particularly work that would require law firms to litigate against the federal government,” the ABA wrote in the suit.
The suit, filed in Washington, D.C., ends with a request to lift all suspensions of security clearances or taking any disciplinary action against ABA members based on their client representation. It frames Trump’s orders as an effort to insulate the White House from scrutiny.
“Without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases—and to do so by advancing the interests of their clients without fear of reprisal from the government—the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on executive overreach,” the ABA wrote in the suit.
The lawsuit also criticizes the unwritten nature of the agreements, saying they had the effect of “dragooning” firms into Trump’s service and “coerce” them into abandoning their own causes, “such as immigration cases or diversity initiatives.”
It also points to comments from Trump saying law firms will need to “behave themselves.”
“These firms all agreed to represent clients in pro bono cases approved by the Administration, and to jettison hiring practices disdained by the President. These ‘settlements’ are apparently not in writing or enforceable by the law firms, so the President can change his mind at any time and impose an executive order if the firms stray too far from the President’s wishes—thus maintaining the coercive effect of the Policy even against ‘settling’ law firms,” the suit states.
The White House called the lawsuit frivolous and said it expects to prevail in court.
“The American Bar Association’s lawsuit is clearly frivolous. The President has always had discretion over which contracts the government enters into and who receives security clearances. His exercise of these core executive functions cannot be dictated by the ABA, a private organization, or the courts. The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement.
The suit is sure to ratchet up tensions between the ABA and the Trump administration.
The Justice Department announced last month it would cut the ABA’s access to judicial nominees, accusing the association of bias in its review process.
The group fought back, calling such claims unfounded, noting that Trump’s nominees don’t fare any worse than those of other administrations and questioning why the Trump team wouldn’t want to thoroughly vet those up for lifetime appointments to the bench.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
