American Bar Association sues Trump administration over intimidation of law firms
The American Bar Association (ABA), which globally is one of the largest voluntary associations of lawyers, has recently filed a lawsuit against the US government, including the Executive Office of the President, numerous federal departments and agencies, and their respective heads.
The core of the lawsuit, filed in a district court (District of Columbia) revolves around what the ABA terms the 'Law Firm Intimidation Policy' adopted by the Trump administration. The ABA asserts that since taking office, Trump and his administration have wielded the extensive powers of the executive branch to unlawfully coerce lawyers and law firms. The objective, according to the lawsuit, is to force legal professionals to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions that the administration disfavors.
This alleged intimidation is carried out through various means, including executive orders, letters, memos, and public statements specifically designed to harm targeted law firms and deter others.
The ABA filed this lawsuit because it believes this policy represents an unprecedented challenge to the American legal profession, the rule of law, and access to justice for all citizens. The lawsuit highlights that this kind of clear retaliation chills First-Amendment protected activity, sending ripples across the legal community.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Što je to umjetna inteligencija o kojoj svi pričaju?
Courses AI
Undo
Lawyers and law firms are reportedly becoming reluctant to take on cases challenging the federal government due to fears of retaliatory actions, which severely limits access to legal representation for individuals and organizations whose views are not aligned with the administration. The ABA emphasizes the critical role lawyers play in the constitutional system as a check on the executive branch, arguing that without independent legal advocacy, the judiciary cannot function effectively.
The lawsuit details several tactics employed by the administration as part of this intimidation policy. These include:
Terminating security clearances:
Individuals at targeted law firms have had their security clearances immediately suspended.
Severing government contracts:
Government contracts held by law firms and their clients are threatened with termination, and contractors are mandated to disclose business dealings with specific law firms.
Limiting access to federal buildings and personnel:
Employees of targeted firms face restrictions on accessing federal buildings and engaging with government employees in their official capacity.
Refraining from hiring:
Federal agencies are reportedly refraining from hiring employees from certain law firms for government jobs without a special waiver.
Targeted investigations:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) and Attorney General are directed to review the practices of law firms, particularly regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, with an implied threat of disciplinary action or prosecution.
The ABA's filing specifically references multiple executive orders issued against firms like Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, citing how these orders caused significant financial and reputational damage.
It also points to 'deals' struck with other prominent law firms (such as Skadden, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Shearman Sterling, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Latham & Watkins, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft) where they agreed to provide millions of dollars in pro bono services for administration-approved causes and alter internal policies to avoid similar sanctions.
The ABA is seeking several forms of relief from the court. Primarily, it asks the court to declare the entire 'Law Firm Intimidation Policy' unconstitutional. Furthermore, it seeks injunctive relief to prevent the defendants—the US government, federal departments, agencies, and their heads—from implementing and enforcing this policy against the ABA or any of its members in the future. Specifically, the ABA requests that the court:
Declare unconstitutional the provisions related to security clearance termination, government contracting, federal building and employee access, and federal employment.
Enjoin the defendants from enforcing these provisions against any ABA member or their law firm based on their affiliation or client representations.
Enjoin the defendants from initiating attorney conduct and disciplinary proceedings or making referrals for disciplinary action against ABA members or their firms based on their affiliations or client representations.
Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper, including costs.
In essence, the ABA's lawsuit is a direct challenge to what it perceives as an executive overreach aimed at stifling independent legal advocacy, thereby undermining the foundational principles of the American justice system and the constitutional rights of free speech, association, and petition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil case: Federal judge orders release of pro-Palestinian activist; freed after three months in detention
A federal judge on Friday ordered the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student, from immigration detention after spending more than three months in custody. Khalil was detained in early March as the Trump administration sought to deport him over his alleged involvement in pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The decision was announced by US District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey, following a request from Khalil's legal team to grant him bail or relocate him from Louisiana to New Jersey to be near his wife and newborn child, according to the Associated Press. Khalil's arrest marked the first under Trump's initiative against students involved in campus protests regarding Israel's military actions in Gaza. His prominent role in Columbia's pro-Palestinian demonstrations last year led to protests in New York and Washington, DC. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has advocated for Khalil's expulsion, saying Khalil's activism poses 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.' Judge Farbiarz had previously ruled that the government could not continue detaining Mahmoud Khalil based on his role in pro-Palestinian protests. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo However, officials later argued that Khalil, a legal US resident, was being held for allegedly providing false information on his green card application — a claim Khalil firmly denies. Khalil was arrested on March 8 at his Manhattan apartment in connection with his participation in the campus demonstrations. Khalil says he did nothing wrong and did not hide anything on his green card application. He told the court he only did a university-approved internship with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and was not an officer, as the government claims. Khalil was not arrested during the Columbia protests and has not been accused of any crimes. His public presence at the demonstrations drew attention from critics and the White House, which accused him of 'siding with terrorists' without providing evidence.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Israel-Iran News Live Updates: Iran FM says ready to 'consider' diplomacy 'once the aggression is stopped'
US President Donald Trump claimed that the United States had taken "complete and total control of the skies over Iran." He further warned Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei saying that "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" The long-simmering tensions between Israel and Iran have exploded into open warfare since Friday, June 13, 2025, marking an unprecedented period of direct military confrontation. Israel initiated a major campaign of fighter jet and drone strikes across Iran, targeting nuclear and military sites, including surface-to-surface missile production facilities, detection radar sites, and surface-to-air missile launchers. Reports indicate strikes on residential areas and fuel depots, with Iran's health ministry reporting at least 224 fatalities and over 1,200 injuries, mostly civilians. Israeli forces have also reportedly killed several top Iranian military commanders and atomic scientists. The IDF claims to have destroyed one-third of Iran's surface-to-surface missile launchers and achieved "full air superiority over Tehran," also striking an Iranian refueling aircraft 2,300 km away. In retaliation, Tehran has launched barrages of missiles and drones, hitting Israeli cities and towns, causing at least 24 deaths and 592 injuries, with a major oil refinery in Haifa among the targets. The IDF confirmed intercepting over 100 Iranian UAVs. The international community, including China, Turkey, and G7 leaders, has urgently called for de-escalation, but both sides remain defiant. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserts the offensive aims to thwart "existential" nuclear and missile threats and has not ruled out targeting Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggesting it would "end the conflict." The UN's IAEA reported physical damage to an above-ground component of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility but normal external radiation levels, while warning of potential internal contamination. Amidst the crisis, planned nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington were called off.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC wants replies from TCP on zone-swap fee waivers
Panaji: The high court has called for replies from the TCP department and the director of vigilance in a PIL seeking to recover fees illegally waived under Section 17(2) of the TCP Act. This waiver was for deleting roads proposed in the regional plan, thereby reclassifying them as settlement areas. The PIL filed by Swapnesh Sherlekar alleged a loss to the exchequer in cases considered for correction of zones. under Section 17(2), where several proposed roads were deleted without the collection of fees and without any statutory basis for such exemption. Among these were properties belonging to TCP minister Vishwajit Rane, who benefited from this unauthorised exemption of fees, the petition stated. In one such case at Carapur in Bicholim, published in the official gazette dated Nov 21, 2024, includes the deletion of a proposed road resulting in 4,214sqm being reclassified as a settlement zone. As per the revised notification, this change should have attracted fees of Rs 1,000 per sqm, amounting to Rs 44.1 lakh, which was improperly waived, Sherlekar submitted in the PIL. The decision for correction of the zone was taken post-March 28, 2024, making the revised rates applicable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo In another case published in the official gazette dated March 7, 2024, in the same village, also belonging to Rane, the deletion of a proposed road resulted in 17,802 sqm being reclassified as a settlement zone, the petition stated. 'This should have attracted fees of Rs 150 per sqm (as per rates applicable before March 28, 2024, for areas between 10,000 sqmto 20,000 sqm) amounting to Rs 26.7 lakh, which was similarly waived,' Sherlekar submitted through his advocate, Rohit Bras De Sa. The total revenue loss in just these two cases amounts to approximately Rs 69.8 lakh, he stated, adding that there are numerous similar cases of deletion of proposed roads between March 2023 and March 2024, as well as after March 2024, which require scrutiny for similar unauthorised exemptions. 'The fee schedule as notified in the official gazette specifically applies to 'fee for correction of inconsistent/incoherent zoning provisions which amount to change of zone of land to settlement zone or the sub-zone settlement (commercial), per square metre of land,' and there is no notified order on record indicating that removal of proposed roads under Section 17(2) is exempted from payment of fees,' Sherlekar further submitted. 'We have heard the counsel Rohit Bras De Sa in support of the petition, and noted the specific pleadings in the petition, which revolve around the properties belonging to Vishwajit Rane, and a specific allegation is levelled that he benefited from this unauthorised exemption of fees,' stated the division Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta.
