← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. v. Executive Office of the President (WilmerHale EO, D.D.C., 2025)

No. 1:25-cv-00917 District · Decided Decided
Court
D.D.C.
dcd
Judge
Richard J. Leon 43
Decided
May 27, 2025
Filed
Mar 28, 2025
Judge (CL)
Richard J. Leon 43
Filed (CL)
Mar 28, 2025
CL Status
terminated

Case Overview

WilmerHale sued the Trump administration following an executive order targeting the firm for its employment of Robert Mueller, pro bono work, and diversity efforts. The order sought to review and terminate contracts with WilmerHale, revoke security clearances of WilmerHale employees, bar WilmerHale employees from federal buildings, and more.


The Application

History

The executive order explicitly targeted WilmerHale for Robert Mueller's past employment at the firm, the firm's pro bono legal representation, and its diversity initiatives, all constitutionally protected expressive activities and associations. The threatened sanctions, contract termination, security clearance revocation, facility access restrictions, constitute government retaliation designed to punish protected conduct.

The Conclusion

Judge Leon found the executive order violated the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement against WilmerHale, holding that the government failed to satisfy strict scrutiny or demonstrate any interest that would justify targeting the firm's protected activities.

Federal Court TMR-770f2020 Law Firm Targeting EO May 18, 2026

Case Analysis

Issue

Whether an executive order targeting a law firm based on the employment of Robert Mueller, pro bono legal work, and diversity initiatives violates the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Rule

Government action that uses federal power to punish constitutionally protected expression or association violates the First Amendment unless it satisfies strict scrutiny. The executive branch cannot arbitrarily target private entities or use federal contracting, security clearances, and facility access as tools for political retaliation.

Analysis

The executive order explicitly targeted WilmerHale for Robert Mueller's past employment at the firm, the firm's pro bono legal representation, and its diversity initiatives. All constitutionally protected expressive activities and associations. The threatened sanctions (contract termination, security clearance revocation, facility access restrictions) constitute government retaliation designed to punish protected conduct.

Conclusion

Judge Leon found the executive order violated the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement against WilmerHale, holding that the government failed to satisfy strict scrutiny or demonstrate any interest that would justify targeting the firm's protected activities.

Overview

The government appealed Judge Leon's order awarding summary judgement to WilmerHale and vacating President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm.

Overview

WilmerHale sued the Trump administration following an executive order targeting the firm for its employment of Robert Mueller, pro bono work, and diversity efforts. The order sought to review and terminate contracts with WilmerHale, revoke security clearances of WilmerHale employees, bar WilmerHale employees from federal buildings, and more.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support