Trump Administration Live Updates: U.S. Suspends Visa Interviews for Foreign Students

New York Times

28-05-2025

President Trump's order targeting the law firm WilmerHale was pointed, given the firm's longtime association with Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the first Trump administration.
President Trump's campaign of retribution against elite law firms that have resisted his efforts to subjugate them is, so far, not going well.
On Tuesday, a judge struck down his executive order seeking to crush WilmerHale, one of several firms the president says have wronged him or have done work for his political opponents. The decision was the latest in an unbroken string of victories for the handful of firms that have sued to stop him.
Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the order was unconstitutional and 'must be struck down in its entirety,' adding that Mr. Trump appeared intent on driving the firm to the bargaining table by imposing 'a kitchen sink of severe sanctions.'
The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution. Judges have already rejected similarly punitive executive orders aimed at the firms Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, and lawyers representing Susman Godfrey asked a fourth judge earlier this month to issue a final decision in their case.
Judge Leon said that despite his decisive ruling, the firm had already suffered because of Mr. Trump's actions. Even though he had temporarily blocked the order one day after the president signed it, he noted that existing clients had already started 'curtailing their relationships with WilmerHale, and new clients are taking their business elsewhere.'
'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The founding fathers knew this!' Judge Leon wrote in a 73-page opinion laced with more than two dozen exclamation points.
'Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence,' he wrote. 'Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no executive order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights.'
So far, federal judges have steadfastly rejected what they have described as an effort by the White House to subjugate the nation's top law firms.
All through March, Mr. Trump issued half a dozen orders individually demonizing firms that had worked for prominent Democrats or aided in efforts to investigate his ties to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.
In each case, the orders leveraged the force of the federal government to give the threats teeth, including by having those firms' lawyers barred from federal buildings and stripped of their security clearances.
The order targeting WilmerHale was especially pointed, given the firm's longtime association with Robert S. Mueller III. He returned there upon retiring from his role as the special counsel overseeing the investigation into Moscow's election interference that boosted Mr. Trump against his rival in the 2016 race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Mr. Mueller left the firm in 2021.
Along with other firms such as Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, WilmerHale sued to stop the executive orders from taking effect, asking Judge Leon to proceed directly to a decision with no trial, as the only question at issue was whether or not a president could take such an extraordinary action.
At the same time, other white shoe firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden and Latham & Watkins agreed to take on hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of pro bono legal work on behalf of causes Mr. Trump favors, avoiding similarly calibrated executive orders.
In his opinion, Judge Leon colorfully dismissed assertions by the government that its targeting of WilmerHale was something routine and apolitical, brushing off the notion with a brusque 'please — that dog won't hunt!'
'Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech,' he wrote. 'The order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm's ability to effectively represent its clients!'
Earlier this month, while Judge Leon was deliberating on his decision, the firm wrote to inform the court that the government had proceeded to suspend two of its attorneys' security clearances.
During a hearing in April, Richard Lawson, a lawyer for the government, told Judge Leon that the lawsuit was an effort to improperly constrain Mr. Trump's ability to 'investigate an area of concern,' despite the appearance that it infringed on the law firm's freedom of speech.
Mr. Lawson had argued in several cases related to law firms that the president enjoys considerable authority to control how the government contracts with and affords access to private companies.
Representing WilmerHale, Paul Clement, the U.S. solicitor general under former President George W. Bush, said the case boiled down to resentment and retaliation by Mr. Trump, who he said had blatantly singled the firm out over its client list and staff.
Mr. Clement said the White House had flexed its power to hurt the firm in ways that were already jeopardizing its business, even just by raising doubt among prospective clients that the firm's lawyers would have the proper clearances and access to take on basic legal work.
'With all respect, there are some subjects where the executive's hands should be tied,' Mr. Clement said.
'If the executive is inclined to interfere with the traditions that are essentially necessary to have the rule of law in the adversarial system of justice, the president's hands should be tied,' he added.
While the firms that rejected a deal and fought back have now notched a string of decisive wins in court, others that sought to appease Mr. Trump have seen high-profile resignations and internal discord. Last week, four of Paul Weiss's best-known partners resigned to start their own venture, after others, including the firm's top pro bono leader, left shortly after the order.
In the meantime, Mr. Trump has recently mused about stretching the limits of the pro bono agreements he reached with other firms and weighed demanding that they do personal or political work.
Finding that the order was essentially designed to harm WilmerHale's business, Judge Leon joined several of his colleagues in concluding that its larger intent was to intimidate other firms in a way that could damage the legal profession as a whole.
'The order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!'