President Donald Trump waves to supporters from his limousine as he arrives at Trump International Golf Club, Saturday, March 29, 2025, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

The law firm targeted in Donald Trump‘s latest missive against perceived political enemies has won a legal victory — at least temporarily.

On Friday, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP — also known as WilmerHale — achieved a partial victory in its request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Trump’s executive order issued the previous day, which accused the firm of “engag[ing] in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” As reported by Law&Crime, the firm filed a lawsuit against Trump and the administration, describing the order — along with others like it — as “an unprecedented assault on [the] bedrock principle” grounded by Founding Father John Adams that “one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit.”

Late Friday, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon agreed with the plaintiffs — in part.

“Undisputably, ‘the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting individuals to “retaliatory actions” after the fact for having engaged in protected speech,'” wrote Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, regarding the firm’s First Amendment claims. “The retaliatory nature of the Executive Order at issue here is clear from its face.”

Because the order requires government contracting agencies to “disclose, review, and terminate all contracts with plaintiff” and restricts WilmerHale employees from accessing to federal officials, buildings, and employment, Leon wrote, “[t]here is no doubt that this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.”

Leon also found WilmerHale faced potential “irreparable injury” under parts of the executive order — harm not only to its constitutional protections but also “specific, irreparable, and non-remediable economic and reputational harm.”

“While economic loss does not always warrant a TRO, this is not a typical situation because plaintiff faces more than economic harm — it faces crippling losses and its very survival is at stake,” the judge wrote, crediting a sworn statement by a top WilmerHale lawyer that the executive order would threaten almost one-third of the firm’s revenues. Specifically, the judge noted, at least 21 of the firm’s 25 biggest clients in 2024 have contracts with federal agencies, and its lawyers are “working on approximately 1,110 matters before or involving federal agencies.”

Should the executive order be enforced, Leon found, “plaintiff would be thoroughly hamstrung from representing clients because its attorneys could not enter federal courthouses or other buildings, or meet with federal employees regarding cases.”

“The impact on plaintiff’s business and reputation cannot be overstated,” the judge wrote.

Leon also found that the stakes go beyond the one firm’s ability to do business and represent clients.

“The injuries to plaintiff here would be severe and would spill over to its clients and the justice system at large,” the judge wrote. “The public interest demands protecting against harms of this magnitude.”

The ruling blocks two sections of the executive order from being enforced. However, sections calling for a review of the firm’s hiring practices for potential “racial discrimination,” including “reserv[ing] certain positions, such as summer associate spots, for individuals of preferred races,” as well as a section directing a “security clearance review” to potentially suspend “any active security clearances held by individuals at WilmerHale,” will be allowed to stand.

“Our Circuit has held that security clearance decisions are within the purview of the Executive Branch, and plaintiff has not pointed to persuasive authority that would support extraordinary injunctive relief at this early stage,” the judge wrote.

Leon ordered the parties to file a joint status report “proposing an expedited schedule” for further proceedings by Monday at 4 p.m.

Trump withdrew a previously-issued executive order targeting the law firm of Paul, Weiss — which has also been linked to Mueller — after the firm agreed to “not adopt, use, or pursue” policies that promote diversity within the organization and to provide $40 million worth of legal services to “support the Administration’s initiatives.” That move was met with outrage by some former employees, as well as an associate’s resignation from a different firm entirely.

That other firm, Skadden Arps, confirmed Friday that it had agreed to provide the equivalent of $100 million in legal services to causes supported by the Trump administration after reportedly learning that the president intended to issue a similar executive order aimed at the firm.

Trump has also issued similar executive orders against Hillary Clinton-linked law firm Perkins Coie, and in February he targeted the firm Covington & Burling, linked to former special prosecutor Jack Smith. The law firm of Jenner & Block, which Trump linked to Mueller associate Andrew Weissmann, has also filed a lawsuit against Trump over his executive order aimed at the organization.

Read Judge Leon’s order here.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.