Left inset: Then-FBI Director Robert Mueller makes an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss recent activities involving FBI agents, Washington D.C., March 5, 2008. (Patsy Lynch/MediaPunch /IPX). Main: President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after stepping off Air Force One, Friday, March 27, 2026, at Miami International Airport in Miami (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein).
As soon as it seemed the Department of Justice was prepared to stop defending President Donald Trump”s executive orders to punish Democratic “lawfare” and the law firms he blamed for it, the Trump administration suddenly reversed itself. Now one firm has asked an appeals court to agree that Trump unleashed unconstitutional sanctions for “welcoming” the late special counsel Robert Mueller back to the law firm after the Russia probe’s end.
In a 40-page brief filed Friday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, WilmerHale referred to Mueller’s death on March 20 at the age of 81. While the firm did not mention Trump’s social media post — where the president said of Mueller, “Good, I’m glad he’s dead” — the filing said it couldn’t be more obvious that Executive Order 14250, “Addressing Risk of WilmerHale,” was never about national security.
In early March, when the DOJ filed documents to dismiss its appeal of the resounding losses, attention immediately turned to the nine law firms that controversially settled with the administration and offered up nearly a billion dollars in free legal services to keep their security clearances and contracts untouched.
Paul Weiss, one such firm, was also linked to Mueller, as Trump’s onetime executive order made sure to point out.
WilmerHale noted that Trump’s stated national security concerns seemed to have vanished once Paul Weiss “agreed to change its tune and adopt policies more in line with the President’s preferences[.]”
“[T]he President vitiated the earlier order in toto, without retaining the suspension of security clearances or any other sanction that could possibly be justified on grounds of national security,” the brief said. “That is proof-positive that these orders are being imposed (and revoked) as a single, unified package.”
What the case is actually about, the brief went on, is Trump’s “draconian punishments” against WilmerHale to plainly “retaliate” against the firm for its former association with Mueller and for its First Amendment-protected viewpoint about the ex-special counsel, FBI director, and Marine.
The firm said the president “openly” stated that the firm’s “‘partisan’ and ‘political’ views, including [the] decision to ‘welcom[e]’ Robert Mueller back to the firm following his work as Special Counsel,” were behind the executive order.
For instance, the order cites Mueller and other former members of his Special Counsel’s Office with WilmerHale ties by name, slamming them for their involvement in “one of the most partisan investigations in American history.”
“[W]hile the President may disagree with Mueller’s decision to accept the invitation (by President Trump’s own Justice Department) to serve as Special Counsel, or with the viewpoints expressed in his report, or with WilmerHale’s decision to welcome him back after his service, the President may not penalize the firm based on its association with Mueller and his (real or perceived) viewpoints,” the filing said.
WilmerHale urged the D.C. Circuit to affirm that Trump’s executive order is “riddled with constitutional defects and that a district judge was “amply justified” in totally blocking the “egregious First Amendment violations”.
“This is First Amendment 101,” the brief concluded.
In a statement on Mueller’s death, the firm said its former partner’s “life was exceptionally well spent,” referring to his military service in Vietnam, FBI directorship during and after 9/11, and the Russia investigation.
“Bob was known more recently to the country as Special Counsel and the namesake for the Mueller Report, which described Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and former President Trump’s actions towards the investigation of Russia’s conduct,” the firm said.
With the DOJ’s “unexplained about-face” keeping the appeal alive, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey each separately filed briefs the same day seeking another victory.
