In Washington, a federal judge has once again drawn a boundary around executive power, ruling that President Trump's order targeting the law firm WilmerHale was unconstitutional — not governance, but coercion dressed in official authority. Judge Richard Leon's decision joins a quiet but growing line of judicial rebukes, as the handful of firms that chose litigation over capitulation find the courts willing to say what many institutions would not: that the machinery of government cannot be turned into an instrument of personal or political retribution. The pattern raises an older question, one
Judge Strikes Down Trump Executive Order Targeting WilmerHale Law Firm
a kitchen sink of severe sanctions
Mark
Why did Trump target these particular law firms in the first place?
Mimi
They had represented his opponents or resisted his agenda in some way. The firms became symbols of institutional resistance to what he wanted to accomplish.
Mark
And most firms just accepted the pressure?
Mimi
Yes. The vast majority chose accommodation over confrontation. They made deals, negotiated, tried to stay out of the crosshairs. Only a handful decided to sue.
Mark
What gave those firms the confidence to fight?
Mimi
Partly principle, partly calculation. They believed the orders were illegal. And they had the resources to litigate. Most firms don't have that luxury.
Mark
Why did the judges side with them?
Mimi
Because the orders weren't really about policy or governance. They were punishment—using federal power to coerce private entities into submission. That's not what executive authority is for.
Mark
Does this mean Trump can't touch these firms anymore?
Mimi
This ruling does. But it doesn't resolve the larger question of whether he'll try a different approach or accept the loss.
El Pulso
- The Trump administration's campaign to punish elite law firms through sweeping executive orders is suffering repeated courtroom defeats, with WilmerHale becoming the latest firm to win a ruling striking down sanctions against it.
- Judge Leon found the order was not governance but a deliberate pressure campaign — a 'kitchen sink of severe sanctions' designed to force the firm into negotiations rather than serve any legitimate public purpose.
- The ruling did not hedge: the order was struck down in its entirety, leaving no constitutional foothold for the administration's intent to survive.
- Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and now WilmerHale have all prevailed in court, validating the minority of firms that chose to fight rather than quietly comply or negotiate.
- The accumulating losses raise an unresolved question — whether the White House will absorb these defeats or seek new avenues of pressure against institutions that have defied it.
In Washington, a federal judge has once again drawn a boundary around executive power, ruling that President Trump's order targeting the law firm WilmerHale was unconstitutional — not governance, but coercion dressed in official authority. Judge Richard Leon's decision joins a quiet but growing line of judicial rebukes, as the handful of firms that chose litigation over capitulation find the courts willing to say what many institutions would not: that the machinery of government cannot be turned into an instrument of personal or political retribution. The pattern raises an older question, one democracies return to in times of strain — where does legitimate authority end and the abuse of power begin?
On a Tuesday in late May, a federal judge in Washington struck down President Trump's executive order targeting WilmerHale, ruling it unconstitutional and ordering it voided in full. Judge Richard J. Leon found that the administration had deployed what he described as a deliberate arsenal of severe sanctions — not to govern, but to coerce. The goal, he concluded, was to drive the firm to the negotiating table through overwhelming pressure, a use of executive authority that crossed constitutional lines.
The ruling was significant not as an isolated event but as part of a pattern. WilmerHale had made a calculated choice shared by only a few firms in the industry: rather than capitulate, it sued. That strategy had already been vindicated for Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, both of which had won similar challenges in federal court. Susman Godfrey, facing its own punitive order, had sought a final ruling from a fourth judge, adding to the administration's mounting legal exposure.
Most firms in the industry had chosen differently — making peace with the White House or staying silent. But the handful that litigated were finding that judges were willing to enforce constitutional limits when executive power appeared to be wielded for personal or political retribution rather than legitimate governance.
Judge Leon's language left little room for ambiguity. The order had to be struck down entirely, he wrote — no salvageable portion, no middle ground. For the firms that had chosen to fight, the victories were accumulating. For the administration, what had looked like an overwhelming show of force was collapsing against the constitutional constraints judges were now prepared to enforce.
On a Tuesday in late May, a federal judge in Washington dismantled another piece of President Trump's campaign against the nation's elite law firms. Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that an executive order targeting WilmerHale was unconstitutional and could not stand. The decision marked the latest courtroom loss in what had begun as an aggressive White House effort to punish firms the president believed had wronged him or represented his political opponents.
The order against WilmerHale had been sweeping in its reach. Judge Leon found that Trump had deployed what he called "a kitchen sink of severe sanctions"—a deliberate strategy designed not to govern but to coerce. The president, the judge concluded, was trying to drive the firm to the negotiating table through overwhelming legal and financial pressure, a use of executive authority that crossed constitutional lines.
What made this ruling significant was not its isolation but its place in a pattern. A small number of law firms had made a calculated choice: rather than capitulate to the administration's pressure campaign, they sued. WilmerHale was not alone in winning. Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block had already secured similar victories in federal court, their challenges to comparable executive orders succeeding where the White House had expected compliance. Susman Godfrey, another firm facing a punitive order, had asked a fourth judge to issue a final ruling earlier that month, adding to the mounting legal defeats.
The strategy of resistance—of fighting rather than negotiating—had proven vindicated by the courts. Most firms in the industry had chosen differently, either making peace with the administration or staying silent. But the handful that had chosen litigation were discovering that judges were willing to say no to the executive branch when it weaponized federal power for what appeared to be personal or political retribution.
Judge Leon's language was pointed. He did not treat the order as a close call or a matter of reasonable disagreement about presidential authority. The order "must be struck down in its entirety," he wrote, signaling that there was no salvageable portion, no middle ground where some version of Trump's intent could survive judicial review. The ruling suggested that there were limits to how far a president could go in using the machinery of government to punish private entities that had opposed him or his agenda.
For the firms that had chosen to fight, the victories were accumulating. For the administration, the legal strategy was collapsing. What had looked like an overwhelming show of executive force—the ability to issue orders that would reshape the behavior of powerful institutions—was running into the constitutional constraints that judges were now enforcing. The question that remained was whether the White House would accept these defeats or attempt to escalate the conflict in some other form.
Citas Notables
The order was unconstitutional and must be struck down in its entirety, with Trump appearing intent on driving the firm to the bargaining table through severe sanctions.— Judge Richard J. Leon
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en The New York Times ↗
Politics & Governance