Trump Allies: Law Firms Strike Deals While Opposing His Administration in Court

Trump Allies, Law Firms, Court Cases : There was widespread fear that the arrangements would discourage them from initiating actions against President Donald Trump’s policies after nine American legal firms reached settlements with him in March and April to avoid a crackdown on their business. According to court documents, at least four of them are now suing Trump’s government in instances pertaining to wind power, immigration, tariffs, and transgender rights months later.

Latham & Watkins, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and Milbank are the four companies. Since May, when the deals were struck, they have been representing clients who have sued the government.

It’s unclear whether these four companies or others are still avoiding specific situations out of concern that they would enrage Trump or jeopardize their arrangements with the Republican president. According to some legal experts, law firms could be juggling conflicting demands since standing up for clients against the government is a major source of reputation and revenue.

“A lot of litigation is opposed to the federal government,” said Michael McCabe, a corporate lawyer who counsels other lawyers on ethical issues. “All of that work is an important part of a law firm economy.”

Following the federal government’s decision to suspend development of the Danish energy company’s offshore wind project in Rhode Island, a joint venture supported by Orsted hired Latham & Watkins to challenge the administration this month.

School districts that sued the government last month in Arlington and Fairfax counties of Virginia are being represented by Willkie Farr. Trump’s Department of Education ruled that its policy of allowing transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identification violated federal education law that prohibits sex discrimination, and they are attempting to defend federal money that is at risk.

In June, Milbank started defending small companies that filed lawsuits against Trump for using emergency powers to impose broad tariffs. In July, the company also started to represent the cities of Newark and Hoboken in New Jersey, which the administration said were illegally protecting their citizens from federal immigration authorities.

In May, Skadden filed a lawsuit against the administration on behalf of a Mexican lady who was turned down for a crime victim visa with the National Immigrant Justice Center, a nonprofit organization that supports low-income immigrants. Requests for response were not immediately answered by the White House or the companies.

“WEAPONIZING” THE SYSTEM OF LAW

After taking office again in January, Trump issued executive orders against five companies he said were “weaponizing” the legal system against him and his supporters and pushing discriminatory workplace diversity practices. The guidelines aimed to deny the companies security clearances and limit their access to government facilities, personnel, and contractual activities.

The targeted companies had either hired lawyers who participated in previous government investigations of the president or have represented Trump’s political opponents or clients challenging his policies in court.

Trump was sued by four of the targeted companies to contest the executive orders. Trump revoked the order against the company when a fifth, Paul Weiss, came to a deal with him. Nine businesses in all signed similar deals, promising to provide roughly $1 billion in free legal services to administration-supported charities.

Critics cautioned that the agreements, which Trump promoted on social media, would have a chilling effect even though they did not seem to prohibit the firms from defending clients in disputes against the government.

U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin and U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, both Democrats, wrote to five of the companies that signed such agreements on April 18 saying they “decided to permit President Trump to suppress their speech and dictate who they can and cannot take as clients.”

Firm officials have defended their arrangements and said that they maintain control over the legal cases they manage in written answers to the legislators and internal emails.

The decisions that declared the directives a breach of the First Amendment’s rights against government censorship of free expression were obtained by the four corporations that sued Trump. Those rulings have been challenged by the government.

According to a July Reuters investigation, dozens of large law firms have generally reduced pro bono work, workplace diversity programs, and lawsuits that may put them in confrontation with Trump out of fear of reprisals. Additionally, Reuters discovered that leading companies have withdrawn from legal action against the US government.

ESSENTIAL CLIENTS

The litigation involving the four companies that have struck deals with Trump, according to legal industry experts, are the types of cases that big firms find difficult to drop, whether they are representing significant customers or are led by major attorneys within the firms.

Orsted, for instance, has long depended on Latham, using the firm in a $680 million finance agreement with JPMorgan last year and in earlier lawsuits involving an offshore wind project in New Jersey under Democrat Joe Biden’s administration.

According to its latest complaint, Revolution Wind, Orsted’s joint venture, has already spent around $5 billion on the Rhode Island project that the government froze and might lose an additional $1 billion if it is not reopened. The complaint alleges that the administration violated federal rules and regulations as well as its constitutional right to due process.

A request for comment on the company’s collaboration with Latham was not answered.

Timothy Heaphy, a head of Willkie’s government investigations group, is representing Arlington and Fairfax counties, which are in the suburbs of Washington. He was previously appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama to the position of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia.

The school boards in Arlington and Fairfax are contesting the dismissal of their cases by a federal court. When asked about their connection with Willkie, they remained silent.

Neal Katyal, a Trump critic and Milbank partner, has been in the forefront of small company tariff lawsuits since June. Katyal often defends cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Newark and Hoboken are being protected from Trump’s “sanctuary cities” crackdown by Katyal and Gurbir Grewal of Milbank, a former attorney general of New Jersey who served as the enforcement chief of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under Biden.

Sara Albrecht, the board chair of the Liberty Justice Center, which is co-counsel in the tariff lawsuit, said Milbank had the Supreme Court argument expertise required. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the Justice Department’s appeal in November after lower courts agreed with the plaintiffs.

Requests for comment from Hoboken and Newark officials were not answered.

Prior to Trump’s second administration, Skadden has collaborated on asylum cases with the National Immigrant Justice Center. Requests for comment were not answered by either.