US presidency: Trump administration maintains ‘chilling effect’ with defence of executive orders targeting law firms
The E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, home to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Tada Images/Adobe Stock
A case pitting four elite US law firms against the White House was heard by an appeals court in May, after the Justice Department (DoJ) reversed its decision not to pursue the matter further. It’s the latest development in what critics say is an attempt by the Trump administration to undermine the independence of the legal profession – and to maintain a ‘chilling effect’ over the sector.
The case centres on executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in spring 2025, accusing the four firms of having engaged in discriminatory hiring practices and of ‘weaponising’ the US legal system against Trump and his allies. The DoJ declared in March that it would drop its defence of the orders after they were struck down by federal district courts during 2025, before quickly changing course.
The firms targeted – Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey and Jenner & Block – have represented political adversaries of President Trump or causes he opposes. The orders revoked the security clearances held by the firms, instructed agencies to end any federal contracts held with them or their clients, and suspended access by employees to government buildings.
Faced with the prospect of similarly punishing executive orders, a number of other law firms opted in early 2025 to strike deals with the government, committing them to refrain from engaging in diversity, equity and inclusion practices and to provide pro bono legal services to causes favoured by the President.
Through a series of summary judgment rulings, each executive order was blocked at federal district court level. An ideological mix of judges each saw in the executive orders different constitutional violations, as well as contraventions of the foundational principles of the US legal system. All four courts agreed that the executive orders violated the right of the firms to protected speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In one ruling, Judge Richard Leon, appointed by President George W Bush in 2002, said enjoining the orders was necessary to maintain ‘the independent and adversarial nature of our judicial system’.
The four separate trial court rulings were consolidated before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In early March, the DoJ filed a motion informing the Court that it was dropping its defence of the orders sanctioning the law firms. Less than 24 hours later, it reversed course and filed a brief seeking to withdraw its voluntary dismissal motion and pursue its defence of the presidential directives. The Court granted the DoJ’s motion to continue its appeals two weeks later.
By that point, there had already been several delays in the case, including a month-long hiatus during the federal government shutdown in autumn 2025. In November, the DoJ lawyer tasked with defending the administration’s orders, Richard Lawson, was replaced as Deputy Associate Attorney General by Abhishek Kambli.
‘The president’s entire history of litigation is to use time to his advantage,’ says Lauren Stiller Rikleen, the Boston-based Executive Director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, which has filed an amicus brief in the case. ‘Time is always this administration’s best friend when it comes to its defence of lawsuits,’ she says, adding that the government appears determined to maintain what she describes as ‘the chilling effect’ of its orders across the entire legal profession for as long as possible.
Oral arguments in the case took place in mid-May and were heard by a panel of three judges. In its brief filed before the hearings, the administration argued that the rulings of the lower courts amounted to the judiciary encroaching on the president’s constitutional power to take action to address ‘racial discrimination, national security risks, and other problems with certain law firms’ and that the orders were firmly within his presidential prerogative. If the rulings had been allowed to stand, it would have invited ‘judicial second-guessing of the President’s security clearance determinations,’ the brief states.
Wilmer, Jenner, Perkins Coie and Susman filed their own briefs in the consolidated case, asking the federal appeals court to affirm the permanent injunctions made by the lower courts of the executive orders targeting their firms. They all opposed the DoJ’s sudden reversal, describing it as ‘an unexplained request to withdraw yesterday’s voluntary dismissal, to which all parties had agreed.’
‘Speaking generally, the arguments that are rooted in national security may have the strongest basis but even at that, the facts matter and it is important to have consistency across administrations and the political spectrum,’ says Steven Richman, Chair of the IBA Bar Issues Commission, about the arguments put forward by the administration in its appellate brief. ‘There are certain prerogatives of the executive branch, but such must be situated in facts to which standards can be applied, and when extra-judicial and political statements are part of the mix, the basis for the appeals can be diluted,’ adds Richman, who speaks in a personal capacity.
Scott Cummings, Robert Henigson Professor of Legal Ethics at the UCLA School of Law in California, says the administration’s decision to pursue the defence of the orders was probably based on public relations considerations rather than the legal merits of the case. Pointing to other ongoing lawsuits challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, he says that much of the government’s decision-making is about ‘when is the appropriate moment at which to stand down that’s going to look the least weak possible.’
Latest Global Insight podcasts include interview with Chile Eboe Osuji, analysis of threats to the rule of law and reporting on US sanctions
IBA Global Insight released three new podcasts in April and May. Together, the podcasts include a look at US sanctions on Russia; an interview with Chile Eboe Osuji, a former judge of the International Criminal Court; and analysis of how the rule of law is under pressure in the UK.
In ‘US, Russia and sanctions’, Global Insight explores how Washington’s decision to issue waivers for sanctions on Russian oil in March has proven highly controversial. The decision stands at odds with the position of the EU for example, with the bloc insisting that despite the global economic situation it’s crucial to maintain pressure on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine via sanctions. Speaking on the podcast are: Thomas Biersteker of the Geneva Graduate Institute; Dara Fernandez of Cina Fernandez, a US qualified lawyer and international sanctions and compliance expert; and Chloe Cina of Cina Fernandez and former Global Head of Sanctions Advisory, Deutsche Bank.
Chile Eboe Osuji has for 30 years stood at the forefront of international law and justice. In the podcast interview he discusses his experiences, counters criticisms of the mechanics of the international legal system and explains the importance of peace as an ‘actionable right.’
Finally, in ‘Rule of law under pressure’, Global Insight examines the findings of a recent report by the UK Parliament’s House of Lords Constitution Committee. The report found that, given threats such as sustained attacks on the judiciary and the UK’s crisis in legal aid and the administration of justice, it has never been more important to protect and strengthen the rule of law. The podcast hears from three members of the Constitution Committee about why the rule of law matters.
Featured are: Lord Strathclyde, then Chair of the House of Lords Constitution Committee; Lady Laing, Member of Parliament 1997–2024; and Lord Anderson, a barrister and former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
Listen to the podcasts here.
New IBA GEI report highlights rapid growth of AI and skill shortages as enduring challenges for the global workplace
In May, the IBA Global Employment Institute (GEI) published its 14th Annual Global Report, which provides a consolidated overview of legal and practical developments affecting employment law and human resources (HR) practice during 2024 and 2025. Based on responses from lawyers in 48 countries, the report offers a comparative insight into how workplaces and regulatory frameworks are currently being shaped across different regions.
The findings show that while many employment related challenges identified in recent years continue to feature prominently, several themes are attracting increased attention in both legislation and practice. In particular, the growing role of AI and digitalisation, persistent shortages of skilled workers and an ongoing focus on employee wellbeing are influencing how employment relationships are structured and regulated. The report examines these developments across countries, reflecting a broad range of regulatory approaches and employer responses observed during the reporting period.
One of the central findings of the report is regarding the expanding role of AI in the workplace. The report found that AI is increasingly being used in recruitment, performance monitoring, workflow automation and data analysis worldwide, while concerns around data protection, transparency and employee rights are also growing. As only a limited number of jurisdictions currently have employment-specific AI legislation, regulatory approaches remain fragmented. Nevertheless, the report reflects a widespread expectation that AI will become a central challenge for HR law and practice in the coming years. Global projections suggest that automation may displace around 85 million jobs, while up to 97 million new roles could emerge, pointing to workforce transformation rather than mass unemployment.
Download the GEI 14th Annual Report here.
SEERIL and OUP co-publish book on sustainable distributed energy resources
In March, the IBA Section on Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Infrastructure Law (SEERIL) co-published – with Oxford University Press (OUP) – Sustainable Distributed Energy Resources: Law and Policy. The book is the latest collaboration in the long-standing relationship between SEERIL, its Academic Advisory Group and OUP.
The book examines how factors including the ongoing global energy transition have resulted in an exponential rise in initiatives aimed at advancing distributed energy resources (DERs). These are small-scale energy resources usually situated near sites of electricity use, such as rooftop solar panels. DERs have significant promise, but a number of environmental, social and economic challenges arise in their implementation. This book addresses these concerns as well as, for example, reviewing the latest law and policy developments on sustainable DERs from around the world.
To order the book, please visit here. IBA members receive a 35 per cent discount by entering IBA35 in the ‘promotion codes’ field at checkout on the OUP website.
IBA Law Firm Management Committee publishes new podcast series
The IBA Law Firm Management Committee (LFMC) published the first episode of its new High Tide Podcast series in May. Led by the LFMC’s Business Development and Marketing Subcommittee, the series explores the strategies, trends and innovations shaping the future of legal services, helping senior marketing and business development professionals stay ahead in a rapidly changing market.
Hosted by LFMC member Elisabeth Houtman, the first episode features John Matson of Arthur Cox in Dublin, who has years of experience working with major clients and navigating the challenges of building trust and delivering value. Elisabeth and John discuss client relationship management, including how lawyers can strengthen their connections with clients.
The LFMC has also published the latest episode in its Best Practice Playbook interview series. The sixth episode features Attila K Csongrady, Head of Central and Eastern Europe English Law Debt Finance at Schoenherr, who shares his perspective on how firms can respond to margin pressure in challenging times. Hosted by Judit Budai, Chair of the LFMC’s Small and Medium Law Firm Subcommittee, the series features committee members giving their views on key management challenges and solutions. Previous guests include IBA President Claudio Visco and former LFMC Senior Co-Chair Paul Marmor.
Listen to the High Tide podcast here.
Watch the Best Practice Playbook interview series here.
IBA publishes new report on gender parity in the Canadian legal profession
In June, the IBA Legal Policy & Research Unit (LPRU) released a new report focusing on gender disparity in the legal profession in Canada. Produced in collaboration with the Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, it is the 16th report to be released as part of the Raising the Bar: Women in Law project.
The report reveals that women make up 53 per cent of legal professionals in Canada, with 51 per cent of those women working in senior positions. Compared to jurisdictions previously studied in the project, Canada performs strongly in terms of women’s progression into senior legal roles. Women are particularly well-represented in the corporate and public sectors, accounting for approximately 60 per cent of in-house counsel and public sector lawyers within the survey sample. Unconscious bias training and coaching and mentoring were found to be the most popular initiatives among Canadian respondents for reducing gender disparity in the legal profession.
The LPRU has also launched a new episode of its Inspirational legal women podcast, speaking to Lise Lotte Hjerrild, a leading Danish M&A and corporate governance lawyer. Now on its second series, the podcast features conversations with IBA members sharing their thoughts and experiences about what it means to be a woman in the legal profession.
Download the Canada report here.
Listen to the Inspirational legal women podcast series here.
IBA Securities and Capital Markets Committee report analyses approaches to stake-building disclosure and mandatory tender offers
The IBA Securities and Capital Markets Committee has published the results of its 2025 survey on stake-building disclosure and mandatory tender offers. The survey covers 33 jurisdictions and was prepared for the Committee’s session held on 3 November 2025 at the IBA Annual Conference in Toronto.
Taking the form of a questionnaire, the survey received responses from the officers of the Committee and was carried out in spring/summer 2025.
The findings now presented in the report are based on the responses received from participating jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction has its own chapter, featuring such countries as Australia, Brazil, the Cayman Islands, France, Hong Kong, Nigeria and the US. The survey’s organisers have also written an introduction, which summarises a number of key insights from the responses.
Read the report here.
US suspension of Russian sanctions undermines efforts to end war in Ukraine
Oil refinery in Yaroslavl, Russia. Nikolay N. Antonov/Adobe Stock
In March, the US government issued highly controversial waivers for sanctions on Russian and Iranian oil to ease the crisis caused by the Iran war. Following the expiry of the 30-day suspension of sanctions, which allowed the purchase and delivery of oil already loaded onto vessels, the US has twice extended the measure on Russian oil, which will last until mid-June.
The decision to ease sanctions against Russia prompted European countries, including the UK and Germany, to insist that the US and its allies should continue to maintain maximum pressure on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. US lawmakers have also criticised the waivers, arguing that they stand to benefit the economies of Iran and Russia.
Thomas Biersteker, a professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute and expert on international sanctions, says that the US issuing a sanctions waiver on Russian oil for the purpose of lowering global oil prices risks undermining the ability of the US to use sanctions relief as leverage to negotiate a settlement with Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine. ‘When you play that card, you no longer have that card in your deck,’ he says, adding that states offering to provide sanctions relief can be more effective in changing behaviour than adding additional restrictions.
IBA Executive Director, Mark Ellis, says the US loosening sanctions on Russian oil risks weakening the Western sanctions regime against Russia, which is intended to make the cost of its invasion of Ukraine so high that Putin is forced to return to the negotiating table. ‘With the conflict in the Middle East making Russian oil a more attractive alternative to supplies from the Gulf States, Putin will be emboldened to prolong the conflict in the belief that he can simply wait it out,’ he says.
Biersteker says, that despite restrictions on Russian oil purchases and other economic sanctions not ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine so far, evidence that sanctions are resulting in higher costs for Russia’s economy and changing its geoeconomic activity, demonstrate they are fulfilling their intended purpose of constraining Russia and limiting its ability to finance its war efforts. ‘The other important reason for sanctions is to send an affirmative signal that it is not ok to invade other countries,’ he says. ‘The United Nations system is founded on the idea of territorial integrity and opposition to the use of force to resolve disputes […] and Russia egregiously violated that norm’.
Since far-reaching international sanctions were imposed on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has been forced to sell its oil at a discount and has spent billions on sophisticated circumvention efforts. These include added costs to import technology and military components through alternative supply routes and purchasing aged tankers to build a shadow fleet to transport sanctioned oil under the radar of the authorities.
Whether companies involved in the transatlantic oil trade have used the US waivers so far, and any effect on the Russian economy, remains uncertain. Dara Fernandez, a partner at national security advisory firm Cina Fernandez, says it is difficult to see a situation where the waiver on Russian oil would be used by companies involved in the transportation of crude because, when considering sanctions risk, they must factor in the likelihood of banks being willing to participate in transactions. Though there might be permission under one regulatory regime, there isn’t equivalent permission or national security interest in other jurisdictions. ‘Even though the waivers may create quite a lot of noise, the reality is, once you start analysing the transaction, the involvement of different points of regulatory nexus as part of the supply chain and, most importantly, the need for support of a banking partner, the waivers may not actually authorise the intended transaction,’ she says.
There is also reputational and future regulatory risk to consider, says Chloe Cina, also a partner at Cina Fernandez and the former Global Head of Sanctions Advisory at Deutsche Bank. While a handful of companies may be tempted to make some quick cash by relying on the waivers, most global, mature businesses are thinking beyond the term of the current administration. ‘Decisions taken, which could be critical when it comes to any area that is under scrutiny of the regulator, need to be defensible not just now or in four years’ time, but beyond this administration and further ahead,’ she says.
Cina says that the sanctions relief on Russian oil is likely to legitimise shadow fleet operators who may now view themselves as a force for good in helping ease the global rise in oil prices. ‘This is why our leaders, like Ursula von der Leyen, have been insistent about maintaining the pressure on Russia despite the real economic and energy security concerns that we face here and beyond the EU’s borders,’ she says.
President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has stressed that the war in Iran and subsequent spike in global oil prices ‘is not the moment to relax sanctions on Russia’ and that enforcing the oil price cap – which prevents EU and UK businesses from facilitating the transport of Russian crude sold above $44 a barrel – will help stabilise global markets and limit Russia’s revenues. Yves Melin, a partner at Cattwyk in Brussels and Co-Chair of the IBA International Trade and Customs Law Committee, says that he expects the EU’s 20th sanctions package – adopted by the bloc’s Council on 23 April – will continue to increase pressure on Russia. ‘The mood currently is to continue preventing European companies and operators from dealing in Russian oil and gas,’ he says.