American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President
the American legal profession faces a challenge that is different from all that has come before. It is unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law. - ABA Complaint ¶ 3 (June 16, 2025)
The government moved to disqualify the ABA's lead counsel, Susman Godfrey LLP (ECF 68). The ABA opposed the motion on July 27 (ECF 70), and briefing closed with the government's reply on July 31 (ECF 72).
Judge Ali held a discovery conference on the ABA's motion to compel the government to respond to its requests for production (ECF 61), and the parties filed a joint motion for a protective order governing the exchange of documents (ECF 73).
BrynoDC Coverage 3 videos
TikTok 
Overview
Overview
The American Bar Association sued the Trump administration over the president's attacks on law firms.
The Facts
The ABA alleges that the government effectuated a policy designed to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions that the President does not like.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the President's executive actions targeting law firms violate the First Amendment rights of attorneys, the ABA's associational rights, or equal protection principles.
The Rules
Rule
The First Amendment prohibits government retaliation against speech or association based on viewpoint or content. Executive action must comply with equal protection and due process limits, particularly when burdening fundamental rights like the practice of law.
The Application
Analysis
If the challenged EOs selectively target law firms based on representation decisions, litigation positions, or political views, this constitutes viewpoint-based retaliation. The ABA has organizational standing to challenge government action impairing its members' ability to practice and advocate.
The Conclusion
Motion to Dismiss
On March 31, 2026, the Court denied the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.281674/gov.uscourts.dcd.281674.43.0.pdf
Conclusion
The case remains active before Judge Amir H. Ali in the D.C. District Court, with the outcome pending judicial resolution of whether the administration's actions violate constitutional protections for legal advocacy and association.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support