US presidency: law firms face targeted executive orders that undermine independence of profession
Judges in the US have struck down executive orders issued by President Donald Trump against the law firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block respectively.
The orders were issued in March among several targeting ‘Big Law’ firms in the US. These orders suspended the security clearances held by the firms, eliminated any government contracts they held and limited access to government buildings and resources. Those targeted have represented political adversaries of President Trump or causes he opposes.
The rulings in May found that the administration’s executive orders against the firms were unconstitutional. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
A number of firms targeted by Trump pushed back and successfully obtained temporary restraining orders. One firm, however, is known to have negotiated a deal with the administration and the executive order against them has been rescinded.
Numerous major US law firms have reached undisclosed deals with the Trump administration in an apparent bid to avoid sanctions. These deals commit them to refrain from engaging in ‘illegal DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] discrimination and preferences,’ to provide $600m in pro bono legal services to causes that the president and the firms both support and agree to work on, and not to ‘deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups and Government Officials, employees, and advisors,’ according to a social media post by President Trump.
The Trump administration’s crackdown has widely been seen as intended to undermine the independence of the legal profession. It’s expected to limit the number of elite litigators willing or able to represent clients who challenge or face criminal prosecution by the administration for years to come.
Scott Cummings, a professor of legal ethics at the UCLA School of Law, describes the attacks as part of ‘a broader autocratic legal playbook’ designed to suppress the country’s legal sector and the court system as an effective adversary. The administration has deliberately focused on the world’s most powerful firms as the initial targets of this strategy, he says. ‘The big focal point of these orders is to intimidate and constrain their ability to take on cases that provide access to justice to people and allow interests to be represented as a counterweight to government power,’ adds Cummings.
As of mid-April, more than 800 firms had signed amici briefs in support of those organisations contesting the executive orders. For Cummings, the legal community’s mobilisation has galvanised attention on what’s at stake.
The law firms that have signed deals have defended their decision-making as driven by strategic considerations. But Lauren Stiller Rikleen, Executive Director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, isn’t so sure that their decisions make business sense. ‘They don’t know what will next upset the President […] what client will cause a problem or make him angry. So, how are they supposed to truly do client intake?’ she asks.
Targeting the elite, deep-pocketed firms that service corporate America also scares everyone else, says Stiller Rikleen. ‘How is the rest of the profession supposed to feel when they watch the most powerful […] not fight?’ she asks.
‘Those firms who challenge the government’s policies in court will be concerned that they’re going to be publicly attacked themselves by figures in the Trump administration,’ says Leslie Levin, a professor of law at the University of Connecticut.
Steven Richman, Chair of the IBA Bar Issues Commission, describes the independence of lawyers as a fundamental principle found in various ethics codes and international instruments. ‘If there are particular contentions to be raised as to specific behaviour of specific lawyers, there are procedures to address them,’ he says. ‘Executive orders that in sum or substance are more in the nature of targeted revenge raise serious issues that challenge faith in the rule of law. That said, I do not second guess any firm that chose a business resolution over a legal fight.’
Since President Trump’s return to office, non-governmental organisations, pro-immigration groups and trade unions have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging his executive orders over their alleged unconstitutionality. These efforts to hold the administration accountable are likely to take a hit given the pledge by a number of firms to do pro bono legal work to support causes of the President’s choice.
The dealmaking ‘redirects a massive amount of free legal services away from clients and causes that are in need and that are pro-democracy, and redeploys them in a direction that is fundamentally anti-democratic,’ says Cummings. ‘It also probably creates conflicts of interest within these firms that then disable them from representing anybody who has adverse interest to Trump – which is by design.’
Statements issued by firms who made deals with the Trump administration argue that they retain independence to pick their clients and cases.
Full judgments in all of the cases brought by the law firms challenging the administration’s executive orders against them are expected in the near future.
Image credit: Courtney H/AdobeStock.com
IBA’s eyeWitness to Atrocities app used as evidence in Ukrainian court
Footage recorded using the IBA’s eyeWitness to Atrocities app has been used as evidence in four cases in the Ukrainian courts. The app captures tamper-proof photo, video and audio footage, which meets the strict evidentiary criteria required to be admissible as evidence.
‘When evidence is indisputable, justice becomes harder to deny. The technology behind the eyeWitness app is helping documenters, lawyers and courts rely on evidence that cannot be altered or challenged, reinforcing the pursuit of truth and accountability,’ stated IBA President Jaime Carey.
Three of the cases are adjudicated by the Commercial Court of Kharkiv in Ukraine and relate to compensation claims for damage to non-residential property. The fourth case is held in the Kharkiv District Administrative Court and relates to the challenge of a tax decision.
Mark Ellis, IBA Executive Director, adds: ‘The inclusion of footage captured using the eyeWitness app in these cases reinforces the importance of verified digital evidence in seeking justice. The eyeWitness app provides an essential tool for documenting human rights violations, property damage and war crimes, and we will continue working with legal bodies to facilitate its use in the pursuit of justice.’
The eyeWitness app has been used in Ukraine since 2017 to securely document human rights violations and international crimes. To-date, documenters on the ground in Ukraine using the app have submitted more than 55,000 photos, videos and audio recordings to the eyeWitness database.
‘Behind every verified photo or video captured with the eyeWitness app is a documenter risking their safety to preserve the truth. The fact that more than 55,000 pieces of evidence have been securely captured in Ukraine reflects both the scale of the crimes and the bravery of those working to expose them,’ says Carrie Bowker, Director of eyeWitness to Atrocities. ‘The use of the eyeWitness app in these cases underscores the growing recognition of the importance of verifiable digital evidence in legal proceedings.’
Key takeaways from the 58th session of the UN Human Rights Council
The IBA’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) has published its reflections on the 58th session and associated side events of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), held from 24 February – 4 April 2025.
At one side event, the IBAHRI and the IBA International Criminal Court and International Criminal Law (ICC & ICL) Programme convened high-level officials of the ICC and the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) with state representatives to discuss the role that the UNHRC can play in promoting accountability for international crimes through strengthened support for the ICC.
The IBAHRI also issued two statements condemning the US government’s recent attacks against the ICC and calling for the UNHRC to continue supporting the Court in its vital work ensuring justice for victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The IBAHRI further welcomed the timely and important joint statement from the Friends of Multilateralism Group – coordinated by Albania, Chile, Kyrgyzstan and the Netherlands – on the importance of multilateral human rights cooperation.
The IBAHRI also supports the adoption of a new resolution on Ukraine, re-mandating the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. The new resolution gives additional attention to the challenges faced by children given Russia’s campaign of forced russification, indoctrination and militarisation across Ukraine’s occupied territories.
Read the reflections in full and links to statements
IBAHRI raises concern over legislative amendments in Peru
The IBAHRI released a statement expressing concern regarding amendments to Law 27692 on the creation of the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI), which were put into effect by the Executive on 14 April 2025.
On 12 March 2025, the Peruvian Congress passed a consolidated bill that expands the APCI’s oversight and enforcement powers over international cooperation implemented by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other entities through numerous amendments.
‘The amendments, which include undefined and/or ambiguous language, fail to fulfil the requirements of legal certainty, necessity, proportionality and due process before an independent tribunal; all of which are essential safeguards for restrictions on freedom of assembly,’ the statement says.
The IBAHRI urges the Peruvian Executive to repeal the amendments to the APCI Law and engage in meaningful dialogue to ensure that legislation on international cooperation upholds international human rights law and standards.
Parliamentary session on global responses to the Yazidi genocide
The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) recently organised a UK parliamentary session on the Yazidi genocide. The session provided an opportunity for the audience to see parts of a documentary, 10 Years of Darkness: ISIS and the Yazidis, and hear from its producer, acclaimed war correspondent Alex Crawford OBE, as well as from a survivor of the genocide.
3 August 2024 marked the 10th anniversary of the Yazidi genocide. On that day in 2014, Daesh (also known as Islamic State, among other names) attacked Sinjar in Iraq and carried out many atrocities against the Yazidi community. Daesh killed many men and elderly, abducted boys to turn them into child soldiers and kidnapped women and girls, subjecting them to horrific abuse.
These atrocities are recognised as amounting to genocide. More than 2,600 Yazidi women and children continue to be enslaved, with limited efforts made so far to rescue them. As such, the genocide against the Yazidis is considered ongoing.
Crawford’s documentary examines the Yazidi genocide and how the world has since responded. It calls for action to be taken to address the atrocities with comprehensive responses, including in relation to justice and accountability.
‘This documentary showcases the importance of ensuring that international crimes, such as those committed against the Yazidis, are addressed with comprehensive responses,’ says Hina Jilani, Co-Chair of the IBAHRI. ‘Justice and accountability are key and cannot be jeopardised.’
The IBAHRI has continued to draw attention to the situation of the Yazidis over the years. In 2023 for example it published a mapping report looking at the legal responses to date and identifying gaps and recommendations to address them. The same year, the IBAHRI testified before the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ Daesh Inquiry.
For more information, click here.
Parliamentary sessions on modern slavery and repression of journalists
The IBAHRI continued its programme of events in the UK Parliament with two sessions that covered issues of focus for the Institute.
The IBAHRI held an event on ‘10 Years of the Modern Slavery Act: Reflections and Future Actions’ in conjunction with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Law, Justice and Accountability. The event, which took place on 8 May, convened an expert panel of: IBAHRI Director Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC; Laura Murphy, Professor of Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery at Sheffield Hallam University; Tatiana Gren-Jardan, Head of Policy and Advocacy at Justice and Care; and Sian Lea, Business and Human Rights Manager at Anti-Slavery International.
On 15 May, the IBAHRI held an event on ‘Tackling Transnational Repression against Journalists’ with International Human Rights Advisors and Hong Kong Watch. The panel discussed the shared challenges faced by journalists targeted by authoritarian regimes, including in China, Hong Kong, Iran, Turkey and Russia, and best practice for tackling this urgent issue. The panel comprised of: IBAHRI Director Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC; Ben Keith, a barrister at International Human Rights Advisors; Kerim Balci, a journalist and Chief Advisor of Human Rights Solidarity; Catherine Philp, World Affairs Editor at The Times; and Lyndon Li, a journalist and human rights activist.
Joint statement expressing concern about crackdown on lawyers in Iran
The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) has published a joint statement expressing concern about the intensified state crackdown on lawyers in Iran. In February, the prosecutor’s office in Mashhad issued indictments against 16 lawyers on the charge of ‘propaganda against the state’, reportedly due to their social media activities relating to, among other things, human rights violations, social and economic injustices and corruption.
The joint statement, signed alongside the Law Society of England and Wales, the Center for Human Rights in Iran and Front Line Defenders, among several others, urges the Iranian authorities to ensure that lawyers aren’t subject to arbitrary arrest, detention and prosecution when conducting their professional duties and to guarantee that all lawyers in the country may exercise their right to freedom of expression, belief, association and peaceful assembly.
To read the full statement, click here.
US presidency: mass deportation scheme ‘playing fast and loose with the law’
Terrorism Confinement Center, El Salvador. La Prensa Gráfica/Wikimedia Commons.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was driving home when US agents arrested him, claiming his immigration status had changed. Within days, he was summarily deported to El Salvador.
But Abrego Garcia, a Salvadorean migrant, had been a legal US resident with a court order barring his return to El Salvador due to threats against him. Officials still accused him, without solid evidence, of ties to the Salvadorian MS-13 gang, a designated foreign terrorist organisation in the US.
A lawsuit brought by Abrego Garcia’s wife quickly went to the Supreme Court, which ordered the Trump administration to ‘facilitate’ the deportee’s return. Officials have described the deportation as an ‘administrative error’, but the Trump administration initially refused to bring him back, saying it’s up to El Salvador’s government to return him.
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele dismissed the Supreme Court’s intervention. ‘How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?’ Bukele said, seated alongside President Trump in mid-April.
The Supreme Court ruling returns the handling of the case to the District Court in Maryland. ‘For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps,’ the Supreme Court ruled. The case is now pending before District Court Judge Paula Xinis, who has scolded Trump administration lawyers from the bench for failing to argue the law in good faith. After a series of delays, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have asked Judge Xinis to enforce her prior ruling that the deportee must be returned to the US.
‘What we’ve seen is people are just put on planes and shipped out of the country without any opportunity to get in front of a judge and make their case about why they shouldn’t be subject to removal at all,’ says Greg Siskind, Co-Chair of the IBA Immigration and Nationality Law Committee.
Abrego Garcia was deported alongside dozens of Venezuelans who likewise were given no chance to dispute their removal. The Trump administration alleged that many of the Venezuelans were members of the transnational criminal gang Tren de Aragua, basing this claim largely on their tattoos and clothing. The men were sent to prison in El Salvador despite a US judge’s emergency order temporarily prohibiting their removal.
US District Judge James Boasberg had ordered two aeroplanes carrying the Venezuelans returned to the US. Administration officials didn’t comply. Judge Boasberg has now begun contempt proceedings, which the administration said it would contest. In such proceedings, the judge would seek to identify who in the Trump administration refused to heed his order and refer them for criminal prosecution. An appeals court has placed those proceedings on hold pending a ruling on whether Judge Boasberg can rightfully continue.
‘In both of those cases and some others now, the administration has arguably defied the judges when they have been given an order,’ says Siskind, Founding Partner of Siskind Susser in Tennessee.
In early April, the Supreme Court ruled that if the Trump administration intends to use the US Alien Enemies Act 1798 – as it did in the Venezuelan case – deportees must be afforded due process to challenge their removal. President Trump has refused to yield. ‘We’re getting [undocumented migrants] out […] and a judge can’t say, “No, you have to have a trial,”’ he said on 23 April.
But both US and international law generally prohibit the return of refugees to countries where they would face risks of persecution or violence. ‘To the extent US laws and procedures apply, due process is a bedrock principle and must be respected. That is where the substantive claim is proved or disproved,’ says Steven Richman, Chair of the IBA Bar Issues Commission. ‘Anything else is right out of Alice in Wonderland, where the Red Queen says, “Sentence first – verdict afterwards” at the trial of the Knave of Hearts.’
All nine Supreme Court justices supported the 10 April ruling in the Abrego Garcia case, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor authoring a statement – signed by the Court’s three liberal judges – which read that ‘the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador.’ Richman, who’s a member of Clark Hill in New Jersey, says this is the ‘appropriate answer. There should be evidence submitted, a proper hearing with due process, and a reasoned result. We call this the adversary system.’
‘At a minimum,’ Trump’s team exhibited ‘a callous disregard’ for Abrego Garcia’s legal protections, says Lucas Guttentag, an expert in immigration law and a professor at the law schools of Stanford and Yale. ‘More fundamentally, it is just one more example of the administration wantonly abandoning a foundational principle of the rule of law and our Constitution, namely that the executive branch itself has an affirmative duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed,’ he adds.
Indeed, due process is one of the core pillars of American law and draws from English common law. Aziz Huq, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, says: ‘It’s clear this Trump administration is playing fast and loose, not just with the facts, but also with the law.’