Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Targeting of Law Firms

Judge Gorton dismissed Larrabee v. Trump for lack of legal standing to sue.

On June 5, 2026, Judge Nathaniel Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the lawsuit Larrabee v. Trump, ruling the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a constitutional challenge against former President Donald Trump’s alleged targeting of certain law firms. "Standing" refers to the legal right to bring a claim, requiring a concrete injury caused by the defendant.

In June 2025, Trump issued executive orders aimed at punishing law firms—including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—that represented clients or causes he opposed. These orders sparked legal challenges contending they violated constitutional protections.

Multiple courts have struck down these orders, citing violations of the First Amendment’s free speech and association rights, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantees. For example, one federal court ruled that "the Order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law." (CBS News)

Judge Gorton’s dismissal underscores challenges plaintiffs face in meeting the standing requirement, which protects courts from adjudicating hypothetical disputes. It also reflects a pattern of restrictive judicial approaches toward suits alleging political retaliation against legal professionals. In December 2025, the Department of Justice contested the American Bar Association’s standing in a related case alleging intimidation of law firms, arguing the claims were speculative.

These developments highlight obstacles for legal practitioners and general counsel seeking remedies against government actions perceived as punitive or chilling to legal advocacy.

The federal judiciary is managing multiple complex cases in this area. Tara Grove, a University of Texas law professor, observes, "The federal judiciary as a whole is trying really, really hard with a huge number of complicated cases coming at them in very short order." This context informs the courts’ cautious approach to standing in politically sensitive lawsuits.

Yes, but: While standing limits lawsuits like Larrabee v. Trump, courts have decisively ruled the underlying executive orders violate constitutional rights, preserving legal protections for law firms.

What's next: Ongoing litigation and potential appeals may clarify standing standards and constitutional limits on executive orders targeting legal professional independence.