The United States Justice Department has asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the American Bar Association challenging actions by the Trump administration against several major law firms.
During a hearing in Washington, government lawyers argued that the ABA lacks the legal standing required to bring the case. The administration said the organisation had not demonstrated a concrete policy targeting law firms and that any alleged threat to its members remained speculative. The ABA filed the lawsuit in June seeking to block the White House from using executive orders to penalise law firms that President Donald Trump has accused of political bias and of using the legal system against him and his allies.
US District Judge Amir Ali appeared sceptical of the administration’s arguments during the hearing, pointing to public statements from the White House and a series of executive orders issued last year against major law firms. The judge also referenced settlements reached between the administration and nine law firms that sought to avoid similar actions.
Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli argued that the ABA and its members had not demonstrated any immediate harm that would justify court intervention. Representing the ABA, attorney Stephen Shackelford said the organisation had sufficiently shown that the administration had developed and acted on a policy intended to intimidate law firms.
Trump issued executive orders in March and April of last year targeting five law firms. The orders aimed to restrict their lawyers’ access to federal buildings and to end government contracts held by their clients. One of the firms settled quickly with the administration, while eight others reached agreements with the White House to prevent similar measures.
Four firms directly affected by the orders, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and Susman Godfrey, filed separate lawsuits challenging the actions. Courts ruled in those cases that the executive orders were unconstitutional and permanently blocked their enforcement.
The administration initially dropped its appeals of those rulings before later reversing course and indicating it intended to proceed with the cases, a development that surfaced during the hearing as the judge considered the ABA’s challenge.
