• President Donald Trump's deal with Paul Weiss marked a turning point in his war on Big Law.
• But the firms fighting Trump's orders have used the deal as evidence that they're legally flimsy.
• A lawyer for Susman Godfrey argued that it proves the orders were never about national security.

President Donald Trump's deal with Paul Weiss was his first big win in his war against Big Law.

In court, it's coming back to haunt him.

For the law firms choosing to fight Trump's executive orders targeting them, rather than striking deals with the president, the Paul Weiss deal has turned into a potent weapon.

They have cited Trump's quick revocation of the order — just six days after it was initially issued — to argue that they never had any legitimacy in the first place. The order, had it been carried out, would have revoked the security clearances of Paul Weiss lawyers out of "the national interest" and barred them from entering government-owned buildings, potentially including even courthouses and post offices.

The argument emerged again in a Washington, DC, federal courtroom on Thursday afternoon as a lawyer representing the firm Susman Godfrey told a federal judge that Trump's turnabout on the Paul Weiss order was evidence that the White House never really believed the law firms posed a national security risk.

"There was no change in circumstances with respect to the trustworthiness of Paul Weiss between the issuing of that executive order and its rescission a few days later," said Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., a lawyer at Munger Tolles representing Susman Godfrey. "And I think in some ways that tells you all you need to know about whether there's anything legitimate about the suspension."

After Paul Weiss agreed to a deal with Trump, in March, its chairman, Brad Karp, told lawyers at the firm that the agreement resolved an "existential crisis" that "could easily have destroyed our firm."

The decision divided the legal profession. Critics said that by choosing to reach an agreement with Trump instead of fight in court — as Perkins Coie had at the time — Paul Weiss empowered Trump to go after more Big Law firms.

Eight more Big Law firms made deals with Trump, averting altogether possible executive orders targeting them, and pledging a total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono hours toward Trump's political priorities.

For the four law firms fighting executive orders — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — the Paul Weiss deal had the opposite effect.

It was a clear indication, they have all argued, that the legal justifications for Trump's orders were baloney.

Under legal precedents, government agencies are required to conduct an "individualized review" to issue and revoke security clearances, judges have ruled in the cases. Reversing the Paul Weiss order in under a week was clearly too short a time to individually weigh whether each person working at the firm posed an actual national security threat, the four law firms have each argued.

Thursday's court hearing, overseen by US District Judge Loren AliKhan, was over whether the judge should permanently block the order targeting Susman Godfrey, a law firm that represents The New York Times in a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, and has represented Dominion Voting Systems in its lawsuit against Fox News.

Richard Lawson — who has been left as the sole Justice Department lawyer defending the government in these cases — said in the hearing that the executive branch has "inherent discretion on security clearances." He has also argued that because each of Trump's executive orders says security clearances should be reviewed "consistent with applicable law," they could not possibly be illegal.

The four judges, overseeing the lawsuits, including AliKhan, have not been persuaded. Each swiftly issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of the executive orders.

On Friday, US District Judge Beryl Howell issued the first order permanently blocking one of the executive orders against Perkins Coie.

She wrote in her 102-page opinion that Trump's actions and public statements indicated his executive orders had nothing to do with national security, but were instead motivated by his dislike of specific people working at particular law firms and because he wanted "big numbers" in pro bono pledges from each firm.

"None of these agreed-upon policy or practice changes appear to explain or address how any national security concerns sufficient to warrant the Paul, Weiss EO could have changed so rapidly," Howell wrote of the announced deal between Trump and Paul Weiss. "The speed of the reversal and the rationale provided in the Paul, Weiss Revocation Order, which focused only on agreements to advance policy initiatives of the Trump Administration, further support the conclusion that national security considerations are not a plausible explanation."

Howell also addressed the circumstances of Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey. After signing the order, Trump announced, "We're just starting the process with this one." It was an indication, Howell wrote, that Trump may view the orders as leverage for a negotiation rather than trying to legitimately address national security issues.

"Whether President Trump's focus on 'the process' refers to enforcement of the Susman EO or that this Order was the opening gambit — akin to the Paul, Weiss EO followed by the Paul, Weiss Revocation Order — for deal negotiations, is unclear," Howell wrote.

On Thursday, AliKhan, asked Lawson if he wanted to share a view on how Howell's order might affect the Susman Godfrey case.

Lawson stumbled through a response.

"No, I don't. There's nothing in there that, I mean, obviously we have a big issue with the finding," Lawson said, laughing. "But I don't think there's anything urgent I need to bring to the court's attention."

• A federal judge appeared impatient with a DOJ lawyer defending a Trump Big Law executive order.
• Jenner & Block asked a judge to permanently block the order, saying it was illegally targeted.
• A Justice Department lawyer struggled to come up with legal rationales at a Monday hearing.

A federal judge appeared poised to hand Big Law another win after he snapped Monday at a Justice Department lawyer attempting to justify President Donald Trump's executive order targeting one firm.

During Monday's court hearing, Richard Lawson, the Justice Department attorney, argued that Trump's order could not possibly be illegal because it required federal agencies to act "consistent with applicable law."

Lawson appeared to struggle through arguments, at times not giving direct responses to questions from the judge.

Lawson said Trump could target Jenner & Block, the Big Law firm, because the president said "Jenner discriminates against its employees based on race" — even though no court or government agency had come to that conclusion.

"Give me a break," US District Judge John Bates snapped, as Lawson said federal agencies should be allowed to follow the order because the firm engaged in "racial discrimination."

The oral arguments, in a Washington, DC, federal court, were part of Jenner & Block's lawsuit seeking to permanently block Trump's March 25 executive order targeting the firm. Bates previously ordered the federal government to pause the implementation of Trump's order.

Jenner & Block, represented by the elite law firm Cooley LLP, is one of four firms that sued the government seeking to stop Trump's executive orders. Nine other Big Law firms all made deals with Trump, collectively promising nearly $1 billion in pro bono work, to avert orders targeting them.

The law firms fighting the Trump administration, so far, are winning. Federal judges have swiftly issued temporary restraining orders preventing the executive orders from going into effect. And in court hearings for other cases, federal judges have been similarly impatient with Lawson's arguments, Business Insider reported Sunday.

During one hearing last week, for the law firm Perkins Coie's lawsuit seeking to stop an executive order, a judge referred to some of the Justice Department's positions as "hyper-technical legal arguments that may have no merit."

'A pretty strange reading'

Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, appeared impatient Monday as he questioned Lawson over the legal basis for Trump's order.

Trump, in the first section of the order, said he targeted Jenner & Block in part because the firm previously hired a lawyer who worked for former Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller, among other reasons.

The order would strip Jenner & Block employees of security clearances, cancel any contracts with the firm and its clients, and ban all employees from government buildings and from meeting with government officials.

"Ordering guidance specific to Jenner & Block that limits access to federal buildings, access to federal employees, access to federal agencies — the rationales in Section One that warrant that are what? Are what?" Bates asked Lawson.

In court filings and in Monday's hearing, Lawson has argued that judges should give broad leeway to Trump's power to target people and companies through executive orders, especially for purported national security issues.

Lawyers for Jenner & Block say the order is effectively government retaliation for free speech, violating the First Amendment. They also say Trump's order would violate their clients' right to counsel, as well as Jenner & Block's obligation to advocate on behalf of their clients without government interference.

The law firm argues that the order would also effectively kick several Jenner & Block lawyers out of their military reserve service because that service depends on their having security clearances.

Lawson said federal agencies would review security clearances on "an individual-by-individual basis" rather than issuing a blanket suspension of everyone at the firm to remain "consistent with applicable law."

Bates said he found that to be "a pretty strange reading" of the executive order.

"You think an agency official, given this executive order, is going to say, 'Well, I'm going to do a person-by-person analysis to decide whether I will suspend the security clearances of these seven Jenner people subject to my agency,'" the judge asked incredulously. "Is that what you think?"

Bates also reserved sharp questions for Jenner & Block's attorney, Michael Attanasio, during the hearing.

He asked whether it was necessary to strike down the entire executive order, or just the parts that directly harmed the law firm.

Attanasio asked the judge to issue a permanent injunction against the entire order, much like Trump withdrew the executive order he issued for Paul Weiss, which struck a deal with the president. The lawyer said Trump issued the order against Jenner & Block as "retribution."

"It was set up to be one form of punishment, and it should be taken down the same way, just as the President did for Paul Weiss," Attanasio said. "The difference being this time it gets taken down not on bended knee, but because this court enforces the constitution."

Bates said a written opinion in the case was "forthcoming."

Correction: April 28, 2025 — An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of pro bono work the nine other firms collectively promised. It is nearly $1 billion, not $1 trillion.