The striking down of President Trump’s punishing executive order against an elite law firm, Jenner & Block, marks another setback for the 47th president’s efforts to tame Big Law. 

The executive order, signed in March, accuses the firm of having “abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan ‘lawfare,’ and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The order contained punitive measures that curtailed Jenner’s ability to work on cases involving the federal government.

Mr. Trump appears to have been particularly incensed that Jenner rehired one of  Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s top deputies, Andrew Weissman, shortly after Mr. Weissman concluded his work on the Russia investigation. The order declares that “Jenner was ‘thrilled’ to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation. Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power.”

Mr. Weissman, a paid MSNBC contributor and high-profile critic of Mr. Trump, returned to Jenner for about a year in 2020-21, having worked there earlier in his career. He is now a professor at New York University Law School. During his years in government, he served as general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation when Mr. Mueller was director, and then as his lead prosecutor. He was the lead architect of the criminal case against an adviser to Mr. Trump, Paul Manafort. 

Mr. Weissman is also notable for his role as the architect of the novel strategy of charging a company with a crime, which, as a federal prosecutor in 2002, he used to bring down the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, one of the world’s largest multinational corporations, which had done work for Enron. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Arthur Anderson’s conviction in 2005, but the firm had already been dissolved and 85,000 people worldwide had lost their jobs, including 25,000 in America.  

Jenner got a new lease on life on Friday when a federal district court judge in the District of Columbia, John Bates, froze Mr. Trump’s executive order. He writes that “few stars are as fixed as the principle that no official ‘can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics.’ … And in our constitutional order, few actors are as central to fixing that star as lawyers.” Judge Bates reckons that Mr. Trump’s order targeted a firm that “did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy.”

Judge Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, adds that the Trump administration “picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. Going after law firms in this way is …. violative of the Constitution” because it “muzzles” Jenner in its future work. Judge Bates adduces that “more than forty percent of Jenner’s revenue comes from government contractors, subcontractors, or affiliates.”

The judge’s accusation that Mr. Trump is seeking to “chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers” echoes the ruling of Judge Beryl Howell, who blocked a similar executive order that was directed at another firm, Perkins Coie. Judge Howell, an appointee of President Obama who’s sought to block multiple Trump executive actions, found that the diktat “violates the Constitution and is thus null and void.”

Judge Bates ventures that “executive orders like this one have become something of a modus operandi for the President.” He also notes that the “administration has shown a repeated willingness to haggle, sending the message loud and clear that Jenner can spare itself — if it compromises its speech.” Several blue-chip law firms, among them Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, elected to reach accords with the 47th president, agreeing to end internal “diversity, equity, and inclusion” practices, and redirect their pro bono work. 

Judge Bates admits that the struggle between Mr. Trump and the law firms raises “interesting, difficult, and potentially meritorious questions about the scope of presidential power and more,” but reasons that the First Amendment is a sufficient basis to find the order to be “unlawful” and to enjoin its enforcement. If more federal action is taken against Jenner, “those actions could very well be equally unconstitutional.”

Judge Bates rules: “The challenged executive order targets Jenner for what it has said and thereby attempts to dampen what it might yet say. That is unconstitutional under any view of the First Amendment.” He also suggests — though does not decide — that the order could run afoul of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution.

Mr. Trump appears likely to appeal the decision handed down by Judges Howell and Bates. Last week four attorneys announced that they were leaving Paul Weiss. One of them, Jeannie Rhee, served on Mr. Mueller’s prosecution team. Another, Karen Dunn, served in the Obama White House and helped to prepare Vice President Harris for her debate against Mr. Trump.