Shaheen & Gordon Joins National Pushback Against Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms

By Tom Jarvis

More than 500 firms across the country – including New Hampshire firm Shaheen & Gordon – signed an amicus brief opposing a series of executive orders recently issued by President Donald Trump.

These executive actions impose federal penalties on several law firms involved in litigation against the Trump administration or tied to individuals critical of the president. The first of these orders, titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie, LLP,” was issued on March 6.

Perkins Coie was targeted for its past representation of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the 2016 election cycle and its involvement in commissioning the Steele dossier – a controversial political opposition research report compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.¹

WilmerHale was also singled out for its past representation of President Joe Biden’s campaign in both the 2020 and 2024 election cycles, as well as its frequent role defending against election-related lawsuits brought by President Trump and his allies.²

The orders include actions such as suspending security clearances, restricting access to federal buildings, and directing federal agencies to terminate contracts with the targeted firms – measures that severely hinder their ability to represent clients.

“We felt this was a wider assault on lawyers, the courts, and democracy itself,” says Attorney Bill Christie, a shareholder of Shaheen & Gordon. “This may be focused on big Washington, DC, and New York-based firms right now, but it’s naive to think it’s going to stop there. It’s important to stand up now against this type of unprecedented government overreach. It impacts not only lawyers but clients and citizens and their ability to seek redress or defend themselves from the government. So, we felt it was a core issue that we wanted to lend our voice to.”

The amicus brief – filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and joined by law firms and legal organizations across the ideological spectrum – supported a lawsuit by Perkins Coie seeking a federal injunction. The suit argued that the executive orders violate constitutional principles, particularly the First Amendment, and threaten the legal profession’s ability to represent clients without government interference.

On May 2, US District Judge Beryl Howell struck down the executive order, calling it an unprecedented and unconstitutional attack on the legal profession. She wrote that the order targeted the firm for its past representation of Hillary Clinton, its election law work, and its diversity efforts – an approach that “sends the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line or else.”
“In purpose and effect,” Judge Howell wrote, “this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’” She added: “Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”
Judge Howell also characterized the administration’s approach as: “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like.”
The ruling permanently blocks the federal government from enforcing the order, citing violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

“At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government,” Perkins Coie Managing Partner Bill Malley said in a March 11 statement. “We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients.”

Beyond Perkins Coie, other prominent law firms have initiated legal challenges against the executive orders. WilmerHale and Jenner & Block filed lawsuits in federal court, asserting that the orders amount to unconstitutional retaliation for their legal work and affiliations. WilmerHale’s lawsuit specifically highlights the firm’s past employment of Robert Mueller, former US Department of Justice special counsel in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, as a factor in the administration’s actions.³

A federal judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of certain provisions targeting WilmerHale, citing a substantial likelihood of success in its challenge on First Amendment grounds. However, the court did not halt the revocation of the firm’s security clearances.

According to ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang, the orders are retaliatory and infringe on the right of lawyers to represent clients without fear of political reprisal. The brief reiterates that “it is a deeply held principle of the legal profession that everyone, no matter their actions or beliefs, is entitled to zealous advocacy on their behalf.”

The ACLU’s filing also outlines how the orders violate not only the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and association, but also the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. It argues that punishing law firms for their advocacy or clientele sets a dangerous precedent that “chills legal representation” and undermines the independence of the judiciary.

Shaheen & Gordon issued the following public statement upon joining the amicus brief:

“We face an unprecedented and pivotal time in our history, where the legal foundation of our nation is being attacked. If we do not stand up and speak out now, we will not only be on the wrong side of history, but we will risk losing everything our country’s founders and the generations of lawyers and jurists since [then] have built. These executive orders do not just harm the targeted law firms, but all of us who practice law, and those who cherish, and refuse to participate in undermining, the equal access to justice that is the hard-won privilege of all Americans.”

New Hampshire firm Sheehan Phinney also released a formal statement in response to the executive orders. Managing Partner Michael Lambert said the firm stands united in defending the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession.

“The strength of our justice system depends on the freedom of lawyers to serve their clients zealously and the public’s trust in a legal process that is fair and free from political influence,” he said.

The American Bar Association and more than 50 state and local bar associations have also issued a joint statement condemning actions that “seek to twist the scales of justice.”

The legal community’s response has been divided. While firms like Shaheen & Gordon have joined amicus briefs opposing the orders, others have opted for settlements. For instance, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison agreed to cease certain diversity initiatives and provide $40 million in pro bono legal services for White House projects to avoid further sanctions.⁴

“I can’t imagine a world where the Trump administration would prevail in this litigation,” Christie adds.

These events have sparked internal debates within law firms and the broader legal industry. Some attorneys have resigned in protest,⁵ and discussions about the balance between professional obligations and political pressures have intensified.

As legal challenges proceed, the outcomes of these cases will have significant implications for the rule of law and the ability of attorneys to advocate for clients without fear of government retaliation. The involvement of firms like Shaheen & Gordon highlights a collective effort within the legal community to uphold constitutional safeguards and resist political encroachments on professional independence.

Endnotes