Coalition Asks Appeals Court to Strike Down Trump’s ‘Law Firm Intimidation Policy’ as Unconstitutional Assault on First Amendment

John WhiteheadApril 18, 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After more than a year of escalating efforts by the Trump administration to blacklist critics, censor dissent, and punish those who challenge its policies, a coalition of civil liberties organizations is urging a federal appeals court to draw a constitutional line against what it calls a sweeping and unconstitutional campaign to silence legal opposition.

The coalition filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in four consolidated cases—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—and in Mark Zaid, on behalf of an attorney who represents national security whistleblowers in cases involving classified information. The coalition’s briefs challenge presidential actions that targeted law firms for representing clients and causes disfavored by the Trump administration. The coalition argues that the executive orders violate the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and due process, and represent an unprecedented attempt by the executive branch to weaponize government power against the legal profession itself. At stake, the coalition warns, is not just the fate of a handful of law firms—but whether lawyers across the country can continue to challenge the government without fear of retaliation.

“If the government can blacklist a law firm for representing an unpopular client or expressing an unpopular idea, then no one’s rights are safe,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This is not just an abuse of power—it’s a direct assault on the Constitution. The right to dissent, to associate freely, and to challenge the government in court is what keeps tyranny in check.”

The legal challenge stems from a series of executive orders and actions issued by President Trump in 2025 targeting prominent law firms that had represented clients or causes opposed by the Trump administration. Framing such advocacy as partisan lawfare, Trump’s executive orders imposed sweeping sanctions—including revoking security clearances, terminating federal contracts, restricting access to government facilities, and discouraging federal agencies and contractors from doing business with the firms. Several were singled out for their involvement in election-related litigation, civil rights advocacy, and other matters seen as adverse to the administration’s political agenda. These measures appeared designed to coerce law firms into abandoning disfavored clients and causes and to deter others from challenging the administration in court. As the coalition argues in its brief, an independent judiciary depends on an independent bar willing to represent unpopular clients and challenge government overreach.

The Rutherford Institute joined a broad coalition in filing the amicus brief, including the ACLU, ACLU of D.C., Cato Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Institute for Justice, Knight First Amendment Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, and the Society for the Rule of Law.

Cecillia D. Wang, Ben Wizner, Brian Hauss, Ashley Gorski, Hina Shamsi, Arthur B. Spitzer, Laura K. Follansbee, and Scott Michelman at ACLU advanced the arguments in the briefs.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.