A federal judge granted WilmerHale’s request to strike down President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm, finding the order unconstitutional.

Senior Judge Richard Leon of US District Court District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the law firm in lieu of proceeding to a full trial. “Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!” he wrote in an opinion Tuesday.

WilmerHale argued the order violated its First Amendment right to represent clients of its choosing and violated constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.

“The Court’s decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients,” a WilmerHale spokesperson said in a statement. “We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients.”

The order had instructed federal agencies to limit interactions with WilmerHale lawyers and to potentially cancel government contracts with the law firm’s clients. Those and other punitive measures were tied to the firm’s relationship with Robert Mueller, who served as a special prosecutor investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian officials.

In an emphatic opinion that used at least 26 exclamation marks, Leon said the order must fall in its entirety, comparing it in a footnote to a pot of “gumbo” that gave him “heartburn.”

The firm brought 11 counts in its complaint, and the judge ruled in its favor on most of them, including all four citing First Amendment protections against the order.

Those counts argued the order was retaliation for protected expression, represented viewpoint discrimination, and obstructed its rights to petition the government and free association.

“Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm’s protected speech!” Leon wrote. “The Order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm’s ability to effectively represent its clients!”

WilmerHale lost its argument that the order violated the Spending Clause by imposing unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts. But the judge said the order was retaliatory enough to deter other firms from taking positions similar to WilmerHale.

“The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!” Leon wrote.

He wrote that the president was “wielding his authority to punish a law firm for engaging in litigation conduct the President personally disfavors,” and that the intended effect of the order was to “drive clients away from WilmerHale.”

The order, like similar ones fought by Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, had been temporarily barred on March 28. A judge on May 2 permanently struck down an order targeting Perkins Coie.

Nine other major law firms, including Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, have chosen to settle with the Trump administration rather than face or fight such orders, which some firms have described as potentially existential threats. Those law firms have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in “pro bono” legal services that are agreeable to the Trump administration, among other concessions.

WilmerHale is represented by Paul Clement and Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy. Clement previously served as US solicitor general and has argued more than 100 cases before the US Supreme Court.

The case is: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of The President , D.D.C., 1:25-cv- 00917, 5/27/25.