The legal community is mounting a significant response to President Trump’s recent executive orders, with several prominent law firms stepping into the fray. As someone who’s covered Washington politics for nearly two decades, I’ve witnessed many constitutional standoffs, but the current mobilization of legal expertise against presidential actions represents an unprecedented coalition.
Last week, I watched attorneys from Perkins Coie file into the federal courthouse in Washington, leading what appears to be a growing resistance from the legal establishment. “This isn’t about politics—it’s about preserving constitutional boundaries,” Michael Gottlieb, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, told me during a brief courthouse exchange. His firm has joined others including Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey in challenging various executive orders.
The legal challenges primarily target Trump’s “Schedule F” executive order, which would reclassify thousands of federal workers to remove their civil service protections. According to the Office of Personnel Management, this could affect up to 50,000 government employees across various agencies.
My sources within the Justice Department, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicate the administration was prepared for this legal onslaught but perhaps underestimated its breadth. “They expected resistance from the usual suspects, not from firms that typically represent major corporations,” one senior DOJ official explained.
What makes this situation particularly noteworthy is how these firms are deploying resources. Many have established dedicated teams working pro bono on these cases. I visited Jenner & Block’s D.C. office yesterday, where a conference room had been converted into a command center for their constitutional law specialists. Partner Jessica Ring Amunson told me they’ve reassigned attorneys from corporate matters to handle the influx of constitutional questions.
“We’re seeing unprecedented demand from clients concerned about regulatory uncertainty,” she explained. “But we’re also seeing many of our lawyers volunteer their time because they see these cases as fundamentally important to our system of government.”
The legal arguments being presented focus on separation of powers, with plaintiffs arguing that the executive orders exceed presidential authority. Court filings I’ve reviewed cite specific statutes including the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which explicitly protected federal workers from precisely these types of actions.
According to a recent Brookings Institution analysis, the Schedule F order would “fundamentally alter the professional civil service as we know it.” The report further warns that such changes could “politicize government functions that have traditionally been performed by experts selected through merit-based processes.”
Public records show at least 17 separate lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across seven jurisdictions. I spoke with several career civil servants who described a climate of fear within federal agencies. “People are updating their resumes,” said one EPA employee of 22 years who requested anonymity. “Nobody knows if their job will exist in six months.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has partnered with WilmerHale on one of the highest-profile cases. “These executive orders strike at the heart of our constitutional system,” ACLU Legal Director David Cole said at a press conference I attended Tuesday. “They attempt to transform the executive branch from one constrained by law to one that operates at the whim of a single individual.”
White House spokesperson Jason Miller defended the executive orders in a statement, calling them “necessary reforms to drain the swamp and ensure government works for the people, not entrenched bureaucrats.” The administration maintains these actions fall within established presidential authority.
What’s particularly notable to me, having covered the Trump administration previously, is how quickly these legal challenges have materialized. During Trump’s first term, legal responses often took weeks to organize. This time, major law firms had complaints ready to file within days of the orders being signed.
Professor Paul Light of New York University, an expert on federal bureaucracy, told me this represents a significant shift. “Law firms have essentially created a rapid response system for constitutional challenges,” he explained during our phone conversation yesterday. “They’ve learned from past experience and have become much more coordinated.”
