Legal Battle Heats up in Washington Over Executive Orders Restricting Legal Market Access
While several major American law firms are challenging punitive measures taken by the Trump administration, the legal battle unfolding in Washington now involves European bar associations.
The Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear a case on May 14 that goes beyond the scope of the relationship between the U.S. administration and several major law firms. At issue are a series of Executive Orders adopted in 2025, restricting access to public markets, federal buildings, and security clearances for firms representing political opponents of the president. Among the directly targeted firms are Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale, which have chosen to challenge these measures in court, while nine other firms preferred to reach agreements with the administration to mitigate the effects.
These measures, initially invalidated, have sparked an unprecedented mobilization in the legal world. The College of Commercial Arbitrators (CCA) submitted an amicus curiae brief emphasizing that commercial arbitration relies on the independence of judges, lawyers, and arbitrators. The document, prepared by Daniel Schimmel, Counsel for Amicus Curiae and associated with Foley Hoag in New York, highlights that an arbitration seat is only credible if legal professionals can work without political pressure and if courts remain free to confirm or enforce judgments, even when they displease the executive branch.
The CCA also sheds light on historical precedents: from Nazi Germany to the USSR, and the Francoist Spain, authoritarian regimes have consistently sought to control arbitration and weaken the legal profession, considered an essential check on power. According to the brief, these examples show that violations of the defense’s independence often signal an early deterioration of the rule of law.
In Europe, on April 1, a coalition of over twenty European bar associations, led by the Paris Bar, the Deutscher Anwaltverein, and the Warsaw Bar, filed an amicus curiae brief before the Court of Appeals. Signatories include the Law Society of England and Wales, the CCBE, and several national orders representing over a million lawyers in total. Their position is unequivocal: sanctioning firms based on their clients or cases constitutes a direct attack on the independence of the profession.
In a statement released on April 8, the Paris Bar emphasizes that the defense’s independence is “an intangible pillar of the rule of law” and highlights the “systemic risks” of any institutional retaliatory logic against lawyers. The European brief underscores that recent history – in Europe and elsewhere – shows that attacks on the profession often accompany a broader weakening of democratic checks and balances.
Beyond the American case, this transatlantic mobilization reveals a common concern: protecting the lawyer to protect justice. The Court of Appeals’ decision will weigh far beyond the constitutional debate alone, as it touches on the fundamental principles of democratic functioning and trust in institutions.
Arnaud Dumourier
