A federal judge has blocked President Trump’s order targeting WilmerHale, citing constitutional violations.

Judge Invalidates Executive Order Targeting Law Firm

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a definitive ruling Tuesday, striking down President Donald Trump’s executive order that targeted the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale). The order had directed federal agencies to revoke security clearances and terminate contracts with the firm. Judge Leon found the directive in violation of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, as well as the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

“For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,” Leon wrote in his decision. “Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!”

Judge Leon emphasized that the executive order posed a threat to the independence of legal professionals across the United States. He warned that the measure sends a chilling message to firms: “If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!”

The law firm became a target due to its association with Robert Mueller, who previously served as special counsel during Trump’s first term and led the investigation into alleged foreign interference in the 2016 election. WilmerHale’s ties to that high-profile probe have reportedly remained a point of contention for the administration.

Wider Legal Challenges Confront the Administration

The ruling adds to a growing list of legal setbacks for Trump’s administration since his return to office. In a separate case on the same day, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman temporarily blocked efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle New York City’s congestion pricing program. The restraining order prohibits the federal government from cutting funding tied to the program’s termination.

In another ruling, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy rebuked administration officials in Massachusetts for failing to follow court directives after six migrants were deported to South Sudan. The judge rejected the administration’s motion to amend or rescind his order that required these individuals to remain in U.S. custody. Murphy criticized the government’s assumption that immigration proceedings could be relocated overseas with ease. “It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than defendants anticipated,” he remarked in his ruling.

Murphy is overseeing a class-action case involving migrants challenging deportations to third-party nations including South Sudan, El Salvador, Guatemala, and others. His comments and orders reflect growing judicial scrutiny over how the administration is executing its immigration policies.

These rulings underscore continued judicial checks on President Trump’s executive agenda, especially in areas concerning legal process, civil rights, and federal authority. While the administration presses ahead with its policy priorities, federal courts are asserting their role in reviewing and, where appropriate, halting orders deemed unconstitutional or procedurally flawed.